Promoting the Use of Okinawan by New Speakers: An Analysis of Honorific Choices in the Family Domain

Abstract

Linguistic insecurity about polite registers constitutes a serious barrier for any new speakers specifically in settings between parents and children or between married couples. Politeness might very well be the register that prevents new speakers from either learning or using their heritage language. This paper examines the current use of honorifics in Okinawan between parents and children, and between married couples. It examines the use and awareness of honorifics in the family domain, paying due attention to situations when honorifics are used without causing communicative and sociolinguistic problems. Two families serve as a case study, including myself and my parents. The results of the analysis of the two families illustrate that the traditional honorific system (use of strict honorifics) has changed to fit modern life and that its accompanying values are characteristic of contemporary Okinawan society. We found that honorifics are rarely used in Okinawan conversations between married couples both by rusty speakers and semi-speaker. The use of honorifics between parents and children (semi-speaker) has been also moderated. If such flexible use of honorifics is adopted at home, there may be a possibility of intergenerational transmission of Okinawan within the family. Lastly, I introduce the opinion of new speakers, all in their 20s, about the use of honorifics. The y do not wish fluent speakers to criticize their mistakes one by one, but they still want fluent speakers to correct crucial errors to master honorifics step by step.

1. Language Shift and Its Effect on the Politeness Register

1.1. Introduction

The Ryukyuan language systems as they have been studied and documented by descriptive linguistics reflect the communicative needs and the social structures of a society that no longer exists. Okinawan society has evolved since the 1950s when the language started to no longer be naturally transmitted between generations. Class structures have changed, and so have gender roles. People now live predominantly in nuclear families, in an increasingly urbanized society, they have fewer children, etc. Relations between spouses, parents, and children have also evolved. The Okinawan language needs to catch up with these developments, but this requires the use of the heritage language in contemporary everyday life. The problem of endangered languages is not only that they have largely fallen into disuse (language shift) or that the linguistic system has been shrinking and has simplified due to the lack of use (language loss). A third and equally crucial problem of endangered languages is that they have not been adapted to contemporary society. Everybody venturing to use the language as a new speaker will be confronted with these issues, and it is in these new language uses, for new social functions, that we can recognize the pressing need for a language adaption process in the Ryukyus. At the moment, these efforts are ad hoc and bottom-up in nature. They are often subconscious. While there is an abundance of literature and models on how to cope with the first two problems (reversing language shift and expanding a language’s functional use also in public domains), the third issue is rarely—if ever—addressed. This article attempts to start filling this gap for the case of Okinawan.

Reclaiming one’s endangered language is a difficult task. For example, even when young people try to use Okinawan, they have difficulties due to their lack of knowledge of how to use honorifics. This problem is more complex than one might commonly think. Contrary to what one would expect from politeness theory, the loss of politeness registers does not necessarily constitute an affront to customs or societal conventions (see van der Lubbe et al. 2021). This notwithstanding, linguistic insecurity about polite registers constitutes a serious barrier for any new speakers—even for rusty and semi-speakers—when they start employing the language outside the classroom and beyond conversations with other new speakers. Specifically, in conversations between parents and children or between married couples, politeness might very well be the register that prevents new speakers from either learning or using their heritage language. I have experienced this myself, in my own family.

In reviewing her own reclamation process, Hammine (2021) identified three types of traditional speaker reactions. Type 1: They point out errors in honorifics and encourage language use; Type 2: They praise the attempts to learn the language, but reply only in Japanese. Type 3 criticizes new speakers for trying to speak their heritage language and insists that they speak Japanese. If the attitude is like that of a Type 1 speaker, motivation will increase. Type 3 results in a vicious language endangerment circle, where speakers are ejected in their attempts to use their heritage language, and this lack of use then prevents them from improving their language skills. When non-full speakers speak Okinawan, it is desirable to be flexible, and this includes simplifying the existing system of honorifics.

Regarding the criteria for determining whether to use honorifics or not, van der Lubbe (2020) reports that age difference is important for the constitution of the sociolinguistic categories of social superior, equal, and junior. It is, however, less clear how pertinent these roles are among family members in the Ryukyus today, or how this may impact the use of honorifics in the family by new speakers. We have at this point no academic accounts on this issue.

In order to address this research gap, this paper examines the current use of honorifics between parents and children, and between married couples. It gauges the possibilities for resolving dissonances with regard to honorific language use. Concretely speaking, it studies what possibilities and practices exist to find a linguistic common ground that is acceptable for traditional speakers and for new speakers alike. To do so, I will examine the use and awareness of honorifics in the family domain, paying due attention to situations when honorifics are used without causing communicative and sociolinguistic problems. Two families serve as a case study here. One is the author’s family (henceforth, family A). The family consists of the grandparents (both in their 80s), their oldest son (in his 50s), their oldest daughter (me, 50s) and a younger brother (in his 40s), and four grandchildren aged between 8 and 25 years. The grandmother (KA) fulfills the criteria for what Anderson (2014, p. 105) terms rusty speakers, i.e., she is fluent, but not proficient in certain linguistic styles and registers, and this includes honorifics. Her daughter (me) used to be what Anderson (2014, p. 106) terms a semi-speaker, i.e., I could understand Okinawan but I had difficulties using it productively for most of my life. However, I started to speak Okinawan more actively about ten years ago. My family lives in Urasoe, except for the two oldest grandchildren who live in mainland Japan. Family (B), the Chibana family, consists of the grandparents (in their 70s to 80s), and their son (in his 40s) living in mainland Japan. There are no grandchildren. The grandmother (SC) has been a semi-speaker, but she started to use Okinawan recently. More details on both families will be given whenever necessity dictates it. These case studies show us how honorific is applied in each family by rusty speakers and two semi-speakers (SC and me).

In Section 1.2, I present a brief outline of politeness theory, and in Section 1.3 an outline of the Okinawan honorific system. In Section 2.1 and Section 2.2, I provide examples of honorific use in both families, and the case of new speakers will be presented in Section 2.3. Let us first start with a brief literature review.

1.2. Honorifics and Politeness Theory in a Japonic Context

In this paper, honorifics are defined as a grammatical system that encodes the relative social status of the participants in communication, while politeness is seen as a cultural necessity in Japanese society following the work of Ide (1989). In other words, politeness expressed through the use of honorifics is not necessarily a strategy to avoid face-threatening acts as proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987). It can also be an expression of discernment (wakimae). Use and interpretation of an honorific system in a language undergoing language shift is fraught with problems. The problem with the Okinawan honorific system is threefold.

• Firstly, there is the problem that new speakers, semi-speakers, and rusty speakers are not fully proficient with the system. This is a sociolinguistic problem that results from language shift and a very different distribution of linguistic resources across speaker types. I will not dwell on this problem here (for details on this, see Anderson 2014; van der Lubbe et al. 2021).
• Secondly, individuals use the linguistic resources they have in order to produce relational meaning in interaction. This is a pragmatic problem. Ever since the discursive turn in politeness theory, usually associated with the work of Eelen (2001), we understand that the linguistic forms do not directly correspond to pragmatic meaning. Pragmatic effects, such as politeness and impoliteness, are achieved through discourse and not simply by linguistic structures and forms.
• Thirdly, the canonical use of honorifics and their interpretations with regard to (im)politeness differ historically in that the use of honorifics as it was practiced before language shift in the private domains (before the 1950s) is seen by many as not being fully compatible with contemporary society.

In this chapter, I am therefore dealing with (a) cross-generational differences with regard to knowledge of honorifics between generations (and speaker types), (b) implications that these differences have on emic interpretations of (im)politeness, and (c) a lack of agreement about social status differences in the family (including the use of honorifics) in a society that has substantially changed since the 1950s. I am interested in this context in conflicting ideas about (im)politeness linked to the use of honorifics in the family domain and in discursive solutions to this sociolinguistic, pragmatic, and sociocultural dilemma. Further details about honorifics, conflicting interpretations, and different discursive solutions will be provided as we move along with the arguments of this article.

1.3. System of Honorifics

The Okinawan language, especially the local Shuri variety, has a complex system of honorific expressions. Differences in class (nobles, warriors, and commoners), gender, and age were once the major factors that governed their use. For example, when two men of similar age and status met, they would first inquire about their age, and if they were the same age, they would decide which of them would use honorifics based on the month they were born (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo 1963, p. 19) There were three social categories that had to be considered in daily life in order to use honorifics appropriately

①

Honorifics towards someone of superior social class and guests

②

Honorifics to somebody senior in age but inferior in social status

③

Honorifics towards an equal, inferior, or close people of the same social class

While in some areas, different forms of honorifics are still used today, depending on whether the person addressed is from the former warrior or commoner class (van der Lubbe 2020), today, firm class distinctions are rarely seen in everyday life, and the segment of speakers who strictly use these three styles delineated above is declining. Sometimes social registers have become part of the local variety, determined by what social classes prevalently lived there. In the areas where many warriors or commoners lived, the warrior or commoner honorifics tend to be used, respectively. Other than such changes in language use patterns, also the system of honorifics has been changing.

Ongoing changes in the language use and system notwithstanding, the following four types of honorifics remain salient today, and they are subject to discussion in this article. All speakers investigated in this paper speak the Shuri variety, thus the main literature review is based on the seminal dictionary of the National Institute of Japanese Language and Linguistics which is based on the Shuri variety (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo 1963). The following features of Shuri honorifics will be discussed in the following. The term “vocative” refers here to a call for attention when a conversation is initiated, i.e., “hey” in English.

(1)

Answering words to affirmative and negative questions

(2)

Second person pronouns

(3)

Addressee honorifics

(4)

Verbs and affixes: Respectful and humble forms

(1)

Answering words

The leftmost column corresponds to the three categories that require consideration of honorific use that were listed above (

Table 1. Kind of response based on Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo (1963, p. 20).

	Affirmation	Response	Negation	Vocative
① Superior social status & guests	ʔuu	huu	’uuu˺u	’uuhuu
② Senior in age but inferior in social status		hoo	’ooo˺o	’oohoo
③ Equal or inferior social status or age, family and friends	ʔii	hii	’iii˺i	’iihii

).

In the next chapter, we will examine which affirmative and which negative forms are used in conversations at home. The response forms in the second from the left column and vocative forms in the right end column were never used in the families I surveyed. Therefore, they will not be further discussed here.

(2)

Second person pronouns

As for the use of personal pronouns, there are mainly ʔjaa and ʔuNʤu. Other forms exist and include naa, mjuNʤu, nuNʤu, etc. In this paper, we focus on the former two pronouns, ʔjaa and ʔuNʤu because the speakers we examine in this paper only use these forms in the family. As

Table 2. Honorification of second person pronouns (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo 1963).

2nd Person Pronoun	Sociolinguistic Use
ʔjaa	Second-person pronouns are used for people of lower or equal rank.
ʔuNʤu	Second-person pronouns are used when addressing a superior or an unknown person in a polite manner.
naa	Second-person pronoun is used to address a younger or more senior person with some respect.
mjuNʤu/nuNʤu	Honorifics for addressing nobles.

shows, mjuNʤu and nuNʤu in the bottom column are part of the aristocratic variety, and naa in the second column from the bottom is used to address a younger or more senior person with some respect. The varieties beginning with na, such as nan, nami, etc. are used in some areas of Amami Island and Okinawa Island (Nakamoto 1983, pp. 162–63; van der Lubbe 2020, p. 7). The pronoun naa, which is positioned between ʔjaa and ʔuNʤu in terms of politeness it expresses is used in the home to address parents and husbands, but in Naha, ʔuNʤu is used (Nohara 1992, p. 7). While the speakers I interviewed are aware of the meaning and usage of this pronoun(naa), it does not appear in the household conversation that were reported and observed (see Section 2.1.1).

(3)

Addressee honorifics

Polite forms can be broadly divided into the sociolinguistically unmarked -jaN form and the polite -biiN form (Nishioka 2003, p. 97). The example of unmarked -jaN is illustrated in (1a), and the polite -biiN form is illustrated in (1b).

(1)	a. kure=e sjumuʧi ja-N.
	this=TOP book COP-IND
	This is a book.
	b. kure=e sjumuʧi ja-ibi-i-N.
	this=TOP book COP-POL-PRS-IND
	This is a book.

The subject “book” in example (1b) is not subject to respect, but the polite -biiN form is used. The addressee honorifics express politeness toward the listeners, irrelevant as to what the topic is. The addressee honorifics are also attached by honorific miʃee as in (2a) and humble words ʔuNnuki as in (2b) like below.

(2)	a. ʃiNʃii=ga sjumuʧi jumi-miʃee-bi-i-N.
	teacher=NOM book read-HON-POL-PRS-IND
	The teacher is going to read a book.
	b. waNne=e ʃiNʃii=ŋkai ʔaN ʔuNnuki-ja-bi-i-N.
	I=TOP teacher=DAT that say-HUM-COP-POL-PRE-IND
	I’m going to say that to the teacher.
	(Nishioka 2003, pp. 98–99)

(4)

Verbs and affixes: Respectful forms and humble forms

Respectful forms in Okinawan, as in Japanese, are “expressions in which the speaker elevates the subject” (Kikuchi 1994, p. 93). A typical expression of the respectful form is -miʃeeN, but when it is used, it relates to the subject, that is, the person being discussed, not to the listener as in polite speech (Nishioka 2003, p. 99). In the example in (2a), -miʃee relates to “sensei” who is the topic of discussion, and -biiN relates to the listener. Humble forms in Okinawan, as in Japanese, are defined as an expression in which the speaker elevates the complement and lowers the subject (places it lower than the complement)1 (Kikuchi 1994, p. 210).

With respect to the usage of these expressions, it is important to remember for the discussions that follow that their usage also includes the expression of respect to one’s relatives. In Japanese, the rule for applying honorifics is to not elevate “persons in the realm of the speaker’s side”, including one’s family and relatives (Kikuchi 1994, pp. 97–199). However, in Okinawan, especially in the Shuri variety, honorifics can also be used for one’s own relatives (Nishioka 2003, pp. 100–1).

Example (3) is an utterance by a wife to her husband. As indicated by the underlined parts, the second person pronoun ʔuNʤu is used as well as honorific forms, and a combination of honorific and addressee honorifics are applied.

(3)	kuma jaka sutoo maa=ŋkaiN ʔica-bi-raN. ʔuNʤo=o juuʧiraN nee-N ʃiwa
	here than other place=DAT go-POL-NEG 2SG=TOP pointless NEG-IND worry
	(I’m) not going anywhere. You shouldn’t be worried about anything
	ʃi-misjoo-raN gutu, hweek haʃiQtu nai-miʃee-ru gutu ʃi-miʃee-bi-ree.
	do-HON-NEG as soon firmly be-HON-ATTR as do-HON-POL-IMP
	you should get well soon.
	(Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo 1963, p. 23)

In Japanese, the rule for applying honorifics is to not elevate “persons in the realm of the speaker’s side”, including one’s family and relatives (Kikuchi 1994, pp. 97–199). Therefore, honorifics are maintained when the listener belongs to the speaker’s group, such as colleagues or family members. However, honorifics are not used when the listener belongs to the outgroup, e.g., no honorifics would be used when one’s superior at work is the subject of a sentence when talking to a group outsider. In contrast, honorifics remain the same in Okinawan in such a case, i.e., it does not matter whether the listener is a member of the group or not. Let us examine the sentence (4), which is the answer to the question, “Where is your father?” (4) can be used for the listener from outside, such as a school teacher or relatives.

(4)	taarii-ja ʔamama=ŋkaiN meN-ʃee-bi-i-N.
	father-TOP there=DAT be-HON-POL-PRS-IND
	Father is over there.

2. Necessity of Language Adaptation to Contemporary Society

As we saw in Section 1.3, the use of honorifics in Okinawan used to be strictly upheld. I have directly experienced the effects of this strict system of language use. I was told to have had offended my grandmother by not using honorifics toward her during my childhood conversations with her. Note that it was not my grandmother who scolded me, but my uncles, aunts, and other family members around me. My grandmother was just gently smiling. Perhaps she was glad to see my attitude of trying to speak Okinawan to her even if my language knowledge was incomplete. However, other family members did not allow me to speak to her in this way. At that time, I had to therefore limit my language choices to Japanese, and this entailed that somebody had to translate for me whenever I wanted to speak to her. Relying on translation was the effect of me not being able to address her with Okinawan honorifics. Since she did not understand Japanese at all, my direct linguistic communication with her was cut off. I understood the full consequences of this kind of language deprivation only as an adult. Just like me, most Okinawans were unaware that our linguistic rights were being violated since our minds were colonized. I see it today as an outcome of what we explore in this issue as the colonization of the mind. This discovery was not easy. I was shocked to realize that I lost a lot of time I could have shared with my grandmother. I became aware of the cultural and traditional values that I could have inherited if only I could have communicated with her.

In this chapter, the actual situation of language use is reported mainly by focusing on the language use in my family (A) in addition to the data collected from Family (B), and other new speakers to complement the data. Let us first recall the different family members, their age, and gender. The first two letters of the acronyms in

Table 3. Sociolinguistic profiles of the family A and B.

	Family A	Family B
Year of birth	GA-M-84: 1938, KA-F-80: 1942	MC-M-80: 1942, SC-F-75: 1947
Year of marriage	1967	1971
Language at home	Couples: Okinawan (90%) Uchinaa-Yamatuguchi (10%)	Couples: Uchinaa-Yamatuguchi 2017~Okinawan (Now: 40%)
Language to their parents:	GA: Okinawan (100%) KA: to her own mother: Uchinaa-Yamatuguchi (100%) KA: to her mother in law: Okinawan (100%)	MC: Okinawan (100%) SC: to her own parents: Uchinaa-Yamatuguchi (100%) To her mother in law: Uchinaa-Yamatuguchi (100%)
Family structure (Children)	Children(3) SA-M-53, TA-F-52, ShA-M-49: Uchinaa-Yamatuguchi 2012~Okinawan(TA-F-52 only) (now: 90%, with mother only)	Child(1): Uchinaa-Yamatuguchi HC-M-45
Family structure (grand-children)	grandchildren: RS-M-25, MA-F-20, RA-M-16, RS-F-11, CA-F-8 Uchinaa-Yamatuguchi: (2) Okinawan (RS-F-11): (Okinawan: 80%)2 Okinawan (CA-F-8) (Okinawan: 30%)	n/a

represent the family and first name, the last letter the gender, and the final number their age at the time of writing this paper. The final number is their birth year. Uchinaa-Yamatuguchi in Table 3 refers to a language variety that emerged from contact between Okinawan and Standard Japanese (Long 2010, p. 2), and that is regarded as Okinawan-substrate Japanese in contact linguistics (Anderson 2015, p. 482).

The differences in the gendered usage of the addressee honorifics will be introduced in Section 2.1, and the intergenerational usage between parents and children in Section 2.2. In Section 2.3, finally I will provide reports on how new speakers in their 20s feel about the use of honorifics.

2.1. Gendered Differences between Couples

In this section, I present examples of language use by Family (A) and Family (B). The Family (B) represents a rare case where the wife (SC) started to speak Okinawan to her husband 46 years after their marriage. My parents (Family A) have been speaking Okinawan since they got married, and they are both bilingual, that is, fluent also in Japanese (details will be discussed in Section 2.1.1). In Family (B), on the other hand, the husband (MC) is bilingual, but the wife (SC) has been what Anderson (2014, p. 106) terms a semi-speaker, i.e., she can understand Okinawan, but she has difficulties using it productively beyond the use of fixed and set expressions. They have used Uchinaa-Yamatuguchi in their conversation since their marriage. Feeling a sense of crisis over the recent decrease in the number of Okinawan speakers, SC has started studying Okinawan, and she has been attending Okinawan language classes. She also developed a desire to speak at home to her husband in Okinawan. When she started doing so, she was told that she should use honorifics toward him. However, she questions the appropriateness of using honorifics toward her husband, and she manages to adjust the balance of incorporating honorifics without being too distant. In so doing, she succeeded in incorporating Okinawan into their daily lives.

The data discussed in the following were collected by first interviewing members from my own family, starting with my mother (KA). Data was mainly collected From March to May 2022, but whenever further questions emerged later I asked her directly and integrated her answers into the paper. There were three main interview sessions of 40 min (at her house), of 30 min (at her house), and of 20 min (at a cafe), The sessions were recorded and the necessary parts were transcribed for detailed analysis. When her husband, GA was present, I also extracted examples from their conversations. Since such data was limited in quantity, I also used elicitations in these sessions. After analyzing this data, I conducted one interview with the SC, which lasted 80 min at my university. The session was recorded and partly transcribed. When I had further questions, I contacted her directly by phone. I did not collect conversation data from her and her family. Therefore, I asked the same questions as KA by elicitation method.

2.1.1. Family A: Language Usage of the Married Couple

Let us consider Family (A) as the first case: Honorifics are not used in conversations between the married couples in this family. The mother-in-law (born in 1896) of the wife KA (born in 1942) had opposed the marriage because of her alleged inability to speak Okinawan. KA is originally from Sakimotobu, in the northern part of Okinawa, where the use of honorifics was not as strict as in Shuri. She tried to persuade her mother-in-law that it was not the case that she could not speak Okinawan—she simply was not good at using honorifics. She subsequently tried hard to learn Okinawan honorifics. Gradually, she became accustomed to some of its basic usage, and communication became increasingly effective.

The mother and brothers of the husband (GA) in family (A) looked down on traditional Okinawan culture, etc. For example, they vehemently opposed the efforts of some family members trying to learn Okinawan folk songs and dances or to play the sanshin (an Okinawan three-stringed musical instrument). Such negative attitudes notwithstanding, the language system was maintained in Okinawan without recurrence to Japanese. Language use in the family was based on the Shuri variety. GA’s mother was at top of the family hierarchy (after the GA’s father had passed away in 1971). Honorifics towards her were basically mandatory, although some siblings did not observe them. Both husband GA and wife KA always used honorifics towards her.

GA’s mother was not offended by KA’s incorrect use of honorifics. She was tolerant of all language use as long as they could communicate with each other. When KA used language that was deemed inappropriate, family members around her (usually her sister-in-law) would sometimes point this out and teach her what was thought to be sociolinguistically more appropriate. Even when KA spoke using what she considered proper honorific expressions to her mother-in-law, she sometimes could not understand what KA was trying to say. It is not clear whether these communication problems were due to the use of incorrect honorifics (social varieties) or due to other linguistic differences (local varieties). When KA and her mother-in-law could not communicate with each other, GA or other family members helped in their conversation. However, these cases were rare. In the end, she never perfectly mastered the honorific system as outlined in Section 1.3, and neither her mother-in-law nor the family around her required her to do so. It was enough for her to become fluent in the minimally required honorific and addressee honorifics for daily life.

Let me briefly describe the family background of KA (the wife). She lost her father in the Battle of Okinawa and grew up at home with her mother (TG, born in 1922) and her grandmother (from her father’s side) until she moved to Naha at the age of 10. Her mother (TG) was often at work, and it was her grandmother who actually spent most of the time with her when she was a child. Her grandmother spoke to her in Okinawan, because it was the only language she spoke. It did not bother her grandmother that KA could not use honorifics or polite language. KA’s grandmother also did not particularly try to teach KA how to use honorifics. Maybe this is the effect of the family being from Sakimotobu in northern Okinawa, where the use of and conventions around honorifics are more relaxed than in Shuri. KA spoke to her grandmother in Okinawan, but KA’s mother (TG) avoided using Okinawan at home and preferred to use Japanese as much as possible. KA did not have any chance to speak Okinawan to her friends. None of them spoke Okinawan at school, and outside school, they communicated by using Uchinaa-Yamatuguchi. Boys used Okinawan among friends, but it was at the time no longer socially acceptable for girls to speak Okinawan. Thus, the only person KA could speak Okinawan with was her grandmother.

When I interviewed KA, she said she never uses honorifics with her own husband. She also says that she speaks to him as an equal, like to a friend.

“I do not use honorifics with my husband. If I used honorifics, I would not be able to have daily conversations with him. I don’t use honorifics to him from the time I first met him. I do not use ʔuNʤu to address him.

I outlined the four types of honorifics in 1.3. In what follows, we will see if she adheres to those four 1-4 usages. However, let us first examine how to use the answering expressions.

(1) Answering words

We expect that ʔuu in Table 1 is used to someone of superior status. Hence choosing this form would mean that KA uses honorifics to her husband, and the use of ʔii would imply that she speaks to him as an equal. However, neither of them appears in actual conversation. As (5b) shows, ʔN appears instead, avoiding both ʔuu and ʔii. There is no entry for ʔN in the dictionaries (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo 1963; Handa 1999), but it frequently appears in conversation3.

a: husband (GA) b: wife (KA)
(5)	a. nuugara maasamuN kamiiga ʔic-u-m-i? (husband)
	something delicious thing to eat go- PRS-IND-Q
	Shall we go out to eat something delicious?
	b. ʔN, ʔiʧi-busa-Qsaa (wife)
	yes go-want-IND
	Yes, (I) want to go.

(2) Second person pronouns

Next, let us examine the use of the second person pronoun. If KA speaks to her husband (GA) as an equal, ʔjaa should be chose. If she would use honorifics towards him, ʔuNʤu would be used.

(6)	a. waN=nee kooimuN ʃiiga ʔiʧu-ʃiga, Ø ʔiʧ-u-m-i? (wife to husband)
	I=TOP shopping to do go-CONJCT go-PRS-IND-Q
	I’m going shopping, are you going too?
	b. waN=nee kooimuN ʃiiga ʔiʧu-ʃiga, papa-N ʔiʧ-u-m-i? (wife to husband)
	I=TOP shopping to do go- CONJCT papa-too go-PRS-IND-Q
	I’m going shopping, are you going too?

As the above examples show, neither ʔuNʤu nor ʔjaa is used. Although KA reports that she uses ʔjaa to her husband, the conversational data shows that she omits the second person pronoun as such as in (6a), using in its place either a zero-form or using the invocative word “papa” (dad) as in (6b). In Japanese, instead of using second-person pronouns, people use names of relatives such as “father” and “mother,” and if the other person is in a higher social position, they address the person by his/her position such as sensei (teacher) or buchō (department head), etc., thus making language choices based on the social relationship between the other person and themselves. Yoshimi and Wu (2003) found that the characteristic regarding the way to address a couple in Japanese is that they prefer to be addressed as “father” and “mother,” When you get married and have children, you become a parent. Since parents cannot unilaterally terminate the relationship with their children, this rapport is considered more stable than that between husband and wife (Suzuki 1973, p. 191). Thus, according to Yoshimi and Wu (2003), when one calls one’s husband “father” or one’s wife “mother,” it is due to the psychology of seeking lasting stability. The use of (7) is another example of avoiding the second-person pronoun in (2) and using the Japanese term otōsan (dad).

(7)	a. naRhwa=kai ‘Nzi-kuRri-wa-ru-ja-ru waN=neR
	Naha=DAT go-come-PART-KP-COP-ADN 1SG=TOP
	(I’m going to) go to Naha
	b. ‘otoRsan naRhw=kai menseR-biR-N NR
	father Naha=DAT go-HON-POL-IND Q
	Otōsan, you are going to Naha, aren’ you?
	(Nihon Hōsō Shuppan Kyōkai 1972, p. 280)

Also, as can be seen from (7b), the honorific form is used for the husband, but KA does not use this kind of honorific for her husband. It has been pointed out that in Japanese, most husbands speak (traditionally) to their wives in a manner that regards them as subordinates, while wives use polite or honorific language toward their husbands (Higa 1982, p. 91). Despite of this view, Kawasaki (1983, p. 87) found out that there are only a few honorific expressions toward husbands in the wives’ speech in the daily conversation. If honorifics are used, then usually when a third party is listening to their conversation (making such language use part of audience design), or in habitual phrases such as (8), when the wife says something that casts herself in the social role of a (submissive and) hardworking wife.

(8)	Ofuro=ni shi-masu-ka. shokuji ni nasai-masu-ka. [Japanese]
	bath=DAT do-POL-Q meal=DAT do-HON-POL-Q
	Would you like a bath? Would you like to have a meal?

KA does not use honorifics such as (8) at all. She uses a plain form as illustrated in (9). As we saw in Section 1.3, the honorific system was strict, but the use of honorifics of Okinawan between married couples seems to be changing both in Japanese and in Okinawan.

(9)	juuhuru=Nkai ʔiim-i. juubaN kam-u-m-i.
	bath=DAT take-Q dinner eat-PRS-IND-Q
	Would you like a bath? Would you like to have a meal?

(3) Addressee honorifics

With respect to the language use of KA towards her husband, we have seen that she does not use the honorific form, nor does she use the equivalent honorifically unmarked expression. Rather, she omits or substitutes these forms, both with respect to question-answering expressions and to second-person pronouns.

Let us next consider the use of addressee honorifics. KA does not use addressee honorifics to her husband. Therefore, sentence (10) is not used by KA to her husband. Rather, she would use the plain form kamumi as seen in (9) above.

(10)	# nama juubaN kam-abi-i-m-i.
	Now dinner eat-POL-PRS-IND-Q
	Would you like to have a meal now?

(4) Verbs and affixes: Respectful form and Humble forms

As with addressee honorifics, KA does not use respectful or humble forms toward her husband. Thus, sentences like (11a) and (11b) never appear as expressions when talking to her husband. (11a) contains the word meNʃeebiiN, the respectful equivalent of unmarked ʔiʧ-uN (go), and (11b) contains ʔuNnukijuN, the humble equivalent of of ʔijuN (say).

(11)	a. # ʧuu=ja kooimuN ʃiiga meN-ʃee-bi-i-m-i.
	today=TOP shopping to do go-HON-POL-PRS-IND-Q
	(Are you) going shopping?
	b. #utu=ŋkai ʔaN ʔuNnuki-ja-bi-i-N.
	husband=DAT that say-HUM-COP-POL-PRE-IND
	I’m going to say that to my husband.

As KA states herself, she regards her husband as an equal. Along these lines of thought, she does not use honorific or addressee honorifics, and she avoids the honorific answering form and second-person pronouns used when she speaks to her husband. Addressee honorifics, respectful forms, and humble forms are also avoided in KA’s utterance toward her husband.

2.1.2. Case 2: Married Couple in Family B (Husband B and Wife B)

The use of language in Family B is different from that of Family A. The husband MC was born in 1942, and the wife SC was born in 1947. They are four or five years younger than the married couple of the grandparent generation in family A. They live in Naha, but MC is originally from Itoman, in the southern part of Okinawa Island. He used to mainly speak Okinawan to his friends but not to his wife until the turning point I will explain below. He is a fluent speaker of Okinawan, because he was raised by his grandmother after his father had died in the Battle of Okinawa, and his mother fell ill. He lived with his grandmother and grew up speaking Okinawan with her. He spoke both Okinawan and Uchinaa-Yamatuguchi with his mother and brother. He did not use honorifics when addressing his grandmother but always used only plain forms. But one day, when his colleagues visited him to help him move and when one of them heard a conversation between MC and his grandmother, this colleague, who was senior but close to MC, was surprised by the fact that MC did not use honorifics toward his grandmother. This visiting friend said that MC should use honorifics toward his grandmother in private so that other colleagues could not hear this admonition. Ever since then, he has learned to be more careful in his language toward his grandmother when people are around.

The wife SC in Family B is from Shuri. She grew up being surrounded by elder speakers who spoke a very polite Shuri variety. She remembers her mother using honorifics toward her father. She always felt that if she was going to speak Okinawan, she would better speak in the same polite forms. Male friends around her in her generation spoke Okinawan, but none of her female friends spoke Okinawan to each other. As mentioned in the case of KA above, it was no longer socially acceptable for girls to speak Okinawan at that time. There were no dialect tags4 (hōgen fuda) used anymore, but if someone spoke Okinawan at school, then the pupils were sometimes made to apologize in front of their classmates during homeroom. They also had to proclaim to be sorry for having used Okinawan words. Having seen classmates apologize, she unconsciously felt that speaking Okinawan was wrong. Having grown up in such a sociolinguistic environment, she never imagined herself speaking Okinawan. It is for this reason that her main language has always been Uchinaa-Yamatuguchi when conversing with friends and family. As an effect, she had lived her life without speaking Okinawan for 70 years, though she was able to understand Okinawans because her parents spoke it to each other at home. This did not change when she got married. With her husband, too, she spoke only Uchinaa-Yamatuguchi. They were married in 1971 and she did not speak Okinawan with him for 46 years. SC did not have to use Okinawan with her mother-in-law when she got married. Thus, she did not have any chance to speak Okinawan to any family members, which is different from the case of Family A.

In 2017, SC participated for the first time in an Okinawan language study group by the Council for the Promotion of Okinawan Language. She gradually became more interested in the Okinawan language and began studying it more intensively. In the following year, she joined a study group of about 8 or 9 people who translated the Bible into Okinawan. It was in this setting that she discovered the joy of using Okinawan. She still attends the Okinawan Bible study group once a month. She told her husband that from now on she wanted to start speaking Okinawan to him. Her husband agreed although he seemed puzzled by this sudden change. He told her that if she spoke in Okinawan to him, she should use honorific forms since he was her husband. She has never used honorifics to her husband during their marriage, and she, therefore, felt uncomfortable about this request. It puzzled her why she ought to use honorifics to him simply because they had started to use Okinawan instead of Japanese. When she shared this impression with her husband, he replied that he was not asking her to be respectful to him, but that she might feel embarrassed if she could not use honorifics toward him. He pointed out that this was the custom for wives when addressing their husbands in Okinawan. Furthermore, he pointed out to a well-known Okinawan proverb that says jaa naree du huka naree, “act outside the home as you would do at home”, i.e., behave properly even if you are at home. He said that it was better to use a proper style when speaking Okinawan. Otherwise, she would be at risk of being seen to behave unmannerly. She understood her husband’s feelings about this, but still had strong resistance to using honorifics for him. Therefore, she has been considering the use of an intermediate language use that is pleasant for both parties. It does not involve honorifics to her husband but avoids the use of answering words and second-person pronouns that are reserved for equals and inferiors. As a result, the two are now able to engage in approximately 40 percent of their daily conversation in Okinawan. SC, like KA, also perceives her husband and herself as equals, and this relation is also captured in the way they speak to each other. Let us examine SC’s actual language use according to the four types of honorific usages I outlined in 1.3.

(1) Answering words

As in the case of Family A, we expect that ʔii in Table 1 would be chosen to answer to questions by her husband MC, because SC considers herself equal to him. However, as example (12) indicates, ʔii is never actually used. SC uses the same form as KA in the first family we studied. ʔN is preferred and both ʔuu and ʔii are avoided

a: husband (MC) b: wife (SC)
(12)	a. nuugara maasa muN kamiiga icu-m-i? (husband)
	something delicious thing eat go-IND-Q
	Shall we go out to eat something delicious?
	b. ʔN, ʔiʧi-busa-Qsaa (wife)
	yes go-want-IND
	Yes, (I) want to go.

(2) Second person pronouns

According to Table 2, if SC considers her husband and herself to be of equal rank, we could assume that she would choose the ʔjaa which is used for people of lower rank. However, SC chooses the zero-form like in (13a). We find no instances of a use such as in sentence (13b) where ʔjaa is employed.

(13)	a. waN=nee kooimuN ʃiiga ʔiʧu-ʃiga, Ø ʔiʧ-u-m-i? (wife to husband)
	I=TOP shopping to do go-CONJCT go-PRS-IND-Q
	I’m going shopping, are you going too?
	b. # waN=nee kooimuN ʃiiga ʔiʧu-ʃiga, ʔjaa ʔiʧ-u-m-i? (wife to husband)
	I=TOP shopping to do go- CONJCT 2 SG go-PRS-IND-Q
	I’m going shopping, are you going too?

In the previous section, KA used an invocative word, “papa” as in (6b), but SC said she does not use this term herself. She does not want to use ʔjaa, nor does she want to use ʔuNʤu. If there is a situation where the use of a personal pronoun is mandatory, such as in subjunctive constructions, then she reluctantly uses ʔuNʤu as in (14).

(14)	ʔuNʤu=ga ʔiʧu-raa waN=nee ʔik-an-sa.
	2SG=NOM go-SUB 1SG=TOP go-NEG-IND
	If you go, I won’t go.

She feels uncomfortable and resistant to using ʔuNʤu, but at the same time thinks that it is better than using the honorific unmarked ʔjaa. If she uses ʔjaa, she feels that it would be very disrespectful towards her husband, as if she were demeaning him5. In such a situation, she has no option but to use her husband’s name instead of ʔuNʤu. However, this strategy is also somewhat problematic, because names are usually used to call out to someone when they are far away from each other. Hence, this, too, feels pragmatically odd.

(3) Addressee honorifics

Like KA in the first family we studied, SC does not use addressee honorifics to her husband. Therefore, she avoids using sentences like (15a) which contains polite form -biiN but uses a plain form as in sentence (15b).

(15)	a. # ʧuu=ja kooimuN ʃiiga ʔiʧa-bii-mi.
	today=TOP shopping to do go-POL-Q
	“(Are you) going shopping today?”
	b. ʧuu=ja kooimuN ʃiiga ʔiʧ-u-mi.
	today=TOP shopping to do go-PRS-Q
	“(Are you) going shopping today?”

(4) Verbs and affixes: Respectful forms and humble forms

The following example illustrates that SC neither uses honorific verbs and affixes nor humble forms towards her husband. (16a) contains the word meNʃeebiiN, the respectful equivalent of ʔiʧ-uN (go) and (16b) contains ʔuNnukijuN, the humble equivalent of ʔijuN (say). Both sentences can be used to someone in higher status than the speaker, e.g., grandparents, teacher, etc.

(16)	(SC addressing her husband)
	a.	# ʧuu=ja kooimuN ʃiiga meN-ʃee-bi-i-mi.
		today=TOP shopping to do go-HON-POL-PRS-Q
		(Are you) going shopping?
	b.	#utu=ŋkai ʔaN ʔuNnuki-ja-bi-i-N.
		husband=DAT that say-HUM-COP-POL-PRE-IND
		I’m going to say that to my husband.

In view of the language use of SC, we come to understand that, firstly, she substituted non-traditional ʔN for replies avoiding ʔuu and ʔii. Secondly, second-person pronouns were avoided as much as possible. When they cannot be avoided for grammatical reasons, the honorific ʔuNʤu was used but not the unmarked form ʔjaa. Finally, none of the polite, respectful, and humble forms were used for husbands.

As we saw in Section 1.3, wives used to traditionally employ honorifics toward their husbands, but the empirical situation captured in

Table 4. Traditional honorifics choices of wives towards their husbands.

	KA	SC
(1) Answering	Not used	Not used
(2) Pronouns	Not used	Rarely used
(3) Addressee honorifics	Not used	Not used
(4) Respect and humble forms	Not used	Not used

shows that the use of honorifics between married couples is rarely seen in the case of this research. This is a case where language use follows social change. Social changes notwithstanding, some consideration for the husbands was observed, such as avoiding the use of second-person pronouns which are used for equals or subordinates since the use of them could sound too blunt in their opinion. From the perspective of politeness theory, excessive use of honorifics between married couples threatens positive face and creates an imbalance in the relationship. Using strategies of positive politeness excessively runs the risk of flouting the sincerity from the side of the speaker with which these strategies are made. To put it briefly, such language use runs the risk of sounding sarcastic or critical rather than polite. Politeness is cultural and culture has changed. This is why the use of honorifics in Okinawan speech may sound unnatural, even though in Japanese and Uchinaa-Yamatuguchi, the married couples usually choose various strategies to express positive politeness in order to ascertain the listeners that they are liked and seen positively by the speaker.

2.2. Parents and Children: Okinawan between Parents, Japanese for Children

It was at some point between 2011 and 2012 that KA (my mother) started to shift to Okinawan in her conversations with me. I had been speaking Uchinaa-Yamatuguchi with my parents for more than 40 years. 10 years ago, a turning point occurred in my linguistic life. It was triggered by a remark by Dr. Nobuyuki Tsukahara, a sociolinguist who is specialized in the Catalan language. During a symposium, in which he participated as a panelist, he said to me,

“What a minority can do is to create value in their language. It is not that we use the language because it has value; it is the other way around, we must use the language to create its value. […] To continue using the language is necessary to create this value. People who can use that language now should use that language wherever they are. It is already great if you can listen and understand it, even if you can’t speak the language. If you can understand it, then you can show your son how to understand it. If people who have that ability do not use the language, it will become obsolete. You must increasingly create more value by using your language.” (Okinawa University Institute of Regional Studies 2013, pp. 251–52).

As a linguist, I had knowledge of the potential abilities of speakers, but I had never been able to fully realize these abilities for me. Even a researcher like myself, who studied Okinawan grammar and wrote a PhD thesis about it, I had always hoped to become involved in reclamation activities deep down inside. However, until I heard these remarks at the symposium, I had given up the hope that I could reclaim my heritage language for myself. The fact that Dr. Tsukahara thought that I could do so, was a sudden and shocking revelation, and it constituted a real turning point in my language life. I then began speaking Okinawan with my mother who was also inspired by his comment. I dared to expose my prior rather poor learning process to people around me and gradually acquired the language not only through research but through and for daily life, too. Learning Okinawan was initially uncomfortable at times, and it was complicated to speak my own heritage language. The discomfort lasted for a while but gradually faded. At the same time, I set up an “Uchinaaguchi Course” at the university where I work. We started in 2013.

I was not aware of my language use toward my parents before I started to write this paper, but I have noticed that I use similar sociolinguistic strategies toward my mother as the wives in 2.1 use toward their husbands. Considering the items 1- 4, these can be summarized as follows.

(1) Answering words

I use ʔN for replies avoiding ʔuu and ʔii. If I must choose between the two, I would choose ʔuu over ʔii. ʔN sounds closer to ʔuu than ʔii, it is easy to use.

(2) Second person pronouns

I try to avoid the use of the second person pronoun itself, preferring using zero-form, or I use an invocative word like “mother”.

(3) addressee honorifics & (4) Verbs and affixes expressing respectful and humble forms

I also avoid addressee honorifics, respectful forms, and humble forms in my utterance toward my mother.

Little by little, as I am getting used to speaking Okinawan, I can have everyday life conversations with my mother. However, my father GA responded in Japanese to me when I spoke in Okinawan until around 2020. As we saw in 1.3, the use of honorifics is mandatory in parent–child conversations, especially with the father as we have seen in example (3) in 1.3. However, I did not use honorifics, and this seems to have contributed a lot to some sense of unnaturalness in my conversations with him. Now in 2022, he is gradually beginning to speak in Okinawan to me. Here are some possible reasons why this change has been happening for these few years.

1. My fluency has increased and the unnaturalness of my language use for native speakers has moderated.

2. I often use the politeness marker -biiN to my father as a mediating strategy.

3. He has become accustomed to conversations with my mother and me, and as a result, his rejection of the conversation has weakened.

Here are some examples I use for my father.

(1) Answering words

I basically use ʔN for replies to my father, but I sometimes use ʔuu. I have never used ʔii to him.

(2) Second person pronouns

I try to avoid the use of the second person pronoun itself, preferring using zero-form, or I use an invocative word like “father”. However, I occasionally use ʔuNʤu as in (17) when the grammatical construction requires a subject.

(17)	ʔuNʤu=ga saN-daree taa=ga s-u-ga.
	2SG=NOM not-SUB who=NOM do-PRS-Q
	If you don’t do it, who will do it?

In this sentence, the respectful form of the second person pronoun ʔuNʤu is used for the subject, but in the predicate, a plain form that is neither respectful nor polite expression is used. This can be regarded as an unacceptable sentence from the perspective of a proficient speaker because it lacks sociolinguistic cohesion. However, such language use represents a comfortable compromise for the speaker, and perhaps also for the listener (my father).

(3) addressee honorifics

I basically prefer to use a plain form as I speak to my mother, but I sometimes use addressee honorifics in conversations with my father. When addressee honorifics are used, it often seems to appear in the middle of the sentence, not in the predicate of the sentence. And as we saw in (16), the combination of polite and simple forms as in (18) is easier to use for the speaker. The predicate is thereby usually in plain form.

(18)	nama ʔiʧ-u-Nci sooi-bi-i-ʃiga, maʤuN ʔiʧ-u-m-i?
	now go-PRS-IND do-POL-PRS-CONJCT together go-PRS-IND-Q
	I’m going shopping, are you going too?

If all forms are in the polite register, the mental distance feels large. On the other hand, if the polite form is not used at all, it feels rude to my father. I believe that by mixing plain and polite forms a sense of discomfort is neutralized and that this presents a language use that makes both me as a new speaker and my father as a full traditional speaker comfortable.

(4) Verbs and affixes of respectful and humble forms

I am still in the process of experimenting with using these forms. I have no resistance to using respectful and humble forms with elder people, but I have resistance to using these forms with my own parents. This makes it difficult to include these forms in our conversations. The case of verbs and affixes is therefore different from the use of addressee honorifics where one can find a sociolinguistic compromise.

As

Table 5. Whether the new speaker uses traditional honorifics for her parents.

	TA (to Mother)	TA (to Father)
(1) Answering	Not used	Occasionally used
(2) Pronoun	Not used	Occasionally used
(3) Addressee honorifics	Not used	Occasionally used
(4) Respect and Humble	Not used	Not used

shows, there is a difference in the use of honorifics towards my father and towards my mother. This might generally be the case for new speakers addressing their parents in Okinawan. Although Okinawan traditionally uses honorifics toward parents, especially toward fathers, the use of honorifics by new speakers is currently not entirely absent, but it is gradual. I suppose that this gradual and mixed style is comfortable for both parties involved. When I incorporate that strategy, I feel my conversations with my father get smoother and last a little longer.

2.3. New Speakers

I interviewed three new speakers in their 20s. Two of them have learned the Okinawan language through NPO activities (Speaker A and B), and one is self-taught (Speaker C).

As

Table 6. Sociolinguistic Profile of New Speakers.

	New Speaker A	New Speaker B	New Speaker C
Year of birth	AK-F-25: 1996	HN-M-25:1996	RS-M-25:1997
Okinawan at home	disuse	disuse	10–20%
How have you learned Okinawan?	Through activities at NPOs	Through activities at NPOs	Through reading Okinawan dictionaries
Have you ever hesitated to talk to an elders because you are not confident in honorifics?	Yes, occasionally	Yes, occasionally	Never spoke to elder except family members (grandmother, mother).
What did you do in such circumstances?	Speak Okinawan and repeat it in Japanese. (Ask if what she said is right.)	Speak Japanese rather than making mistakes in Okinawan.	n/a
What is the attitude you would like to see in a fluent speaker?	If my honorifics are incorrect, I don’t want to be pointed out each time, but just want them to tell me where it is crucial.	If I use honorifics incorrectly, I want them to point them out each time.	If my honorifics are incorrect, I don’t want to be pointed out each time, but just want them to tell me where it is crucial.

shows, speakers A and B are aware of having hesitated to talk to full speakers because they are not confident about their ability to use honorifics properly. They both feel that it would be rude to others if they would not use honorifics properly. It should be noted that since the domain in which they use Okinawan is outside the family, they do not feel the discomfort that occurs when using honorifics between family members as seen in Section 2.1 and Section 2.2. Therefore, they use question-answering words and second-person pronouns toward elders without hesitation. Speaker C occasionally speaks Okinawan to his grandmother and his mother. He thinks honorifics are not necessary when he speaks to his family members.

Table 7. What New Speakers Want from Proficient Speakers.

	What Do You Want or expect from proficient speakers?
Speaker A	Since I am from a generation where Okinawan is not my native language, I think it would be good if I could communicate what I want to say without being rude to others on the assumption that I cannot speak perfectly. On the other hand, if you find it difficult to convey your message or if it is rude, please correct it as much as possible.
Speaker B	I want a proficient speaker to teach me rather than reject possible inaccuracies. It may depend on the attitude of the proficient speaker, but I would like the proficient speaker to teach the important aspects of honorifics in a tolerant, step-by-step manner, rather than demanding perfection in the use of honorifics from beginners. Such an approach would result in good motivation.

shows how the new speakers want the proficient speakers to teach them honorifics and correct their mistakes. They do not wish fluent speakers to criticize their mistakes one by one, but they still want fluent speakers to correct crucial errors to master honorifics step by step.

Because of the space limitations, their opinions cannot be reflected here comprehensively. But three of them agree honorifics are necessary, but they were also firm in stating that was more important to keep speaking Okinawan rather than being afraid to speak out of fear to make mistakes in honorifics. They hope to use honorifics to the extent that new speakers and traditional, full speakers can communicate comfortably with each other.

As we have seen in Section 1.2, Hammine (2021) has identified three types of traditional speaker reactions. Type 1: They point out errors in honorifics and encourage language use; Type 2: They praise the attempts to learn the language but reply only in Japanese. Type 3 criticize new speakers for trying to speak their heritage language and insist that they speak Japanese. Table 6 and Table 7 show they wish full speakers to be Type 1 speakers.

Language reclamation, and the issue of honorifics as outlined in this paper, is a problem for all new speakers in every domain, but it is also an issue in which the traditional, full speakers of the endangered language have to engage if they want to resist a further deterioration of the ongoing language endangerment and language loss processes. The problem is a societal one, and it includes all, full speakers, rusty speakers, semi speakers, and new speakers alike. Finding viable solutions will also profit all, even those who have not yet started to reclaim their heritage languages, i.e., the non-speakers.

3. Conclusions

This paper illustrates that the traditional honorific system (use of strict honorifics) has changed to fit modern life and its accompanying values that characterize contemporary Okinawan society. I found that honorifics are rarely used in Okinawan conversations between married couples. The use of honorifics between parents and children has been also moderated. If such flexible use of honorifics is consciously adopted at home, the possibility of intergenerational transmission of Okinawan within the family might be increased, albeit very little. Natural intergenerational language transmission is effective, and language use in the family is often considered an important basis for its success in the language revitalization process (Fishman 1991; Spolsky 2010). New speakers who have learned the language outside their family are also looking for flexible models that guide their language learning and language use. Okinawan society must come together on these issues, and they cannot simply be solved only from the side of the new speakers or simply by reference to the past and its now partly obsolete conventions. On a positive note, I saw that such processes have started at the personal micro level. The next step is to generalize on these developments and to spread both the solutions that emerge from these sociolinguistic problems as well as the acceptance of these solutions.