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

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article addresses a question at the intersection of several important sociolinguistic concerns (language maintenance, politeness, generational and gender variation) and it discusses inherently interesting effects of the interplay of these factors. As such, it has undeniable potential merit in contributing to the existing scholarship. It has, however, several flaws which weaken its value and are of sufficient significance to require a revision before publication.

In no particular order:

 

1)    Politeness/honorifics and their theorization

a)     the author references politeness (politeness theory, politeness registers, politeness strategies) somewhat unproblematically and provide no referencing which may help the reader understand how they characterize this phenomenon. While they clearly appear to refer to Brown and Levinsonian strategies, they don’t reference them, nor do they qualify in any section whether their notion of face is relevant to what is observed in this study.

b)    They also seem to use “honorification” and “politeness” as if these were interchangeable, which is debatable. Many ‘meanings’ attached to the use of honorifics are discussed in the paper, and some may simply be unmarked markers of social distance rather than “politeness” (or “deference”) itself. There seems to be no distinction between “politeness” or “respect” (eg Table 2). The terminology ought to be more precise.

c)     Also, in terms of categorization, it is not clear to me why “Honorifics for addressing nobles.” Are discussed under “personal pronouns” and not “addressee honorifics”.

d)    The question of what is and is not “politeness” has been discussed extensively in the literature under the topic of ‘first-order’ (user’s assessments) and ‘second-order’ politeness (researchers’ label for a range of related phenomena). Since the author discusses users’ evaluative comments as well as the researcher’s own assessment, using this distinction seems crucial (cf. the relevant section in Eelen, G. (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theory. St. Jerome Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315760179).

e)    The section on “systems of honorifics” must be adequately referenced. No reference (except for the Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyujo 1963) is indicated for honorifics in Okinawan, the Shuri variety, no mention is made of how these relate to Amami or other varieties, nor how – as systems – they compare/differ from Japanese, which is evidently impacting all of the above. Some comparative remarks now appear on p.4 but these ought to be presented more systematically. Footnote 1 appears to contradict statements made in the text. More comments on Sakimotobu on p. 7 should be part of this comprehensive description in a dedicated section.

f)      Many statements are simply too generic: “In addition to the use of honorifics toward one's own immediate family….”: could something be said about the specific contexts in which honorifics are demanded in family life?

g)     The statement that couples would/could use “polite/addressee honorifics” to each other (as opposed to using referent honorification) is taken for granted but it is not at all evident to me why they should. The difference between referent and addressee honorification appears hazy in the discussion (especially in the data analysis section); starting with definitions and a more precise description of when these are used would arguably help.

h)    2.1.2: “colleague” is too vague a role-definition, and more specific information about length of acquaintance, relative position etc seem crucial in a paper on sociolinguistic matters.

i)      A more comprehensive definition of “answering words” is necessary

j)      “traditional” (see p.13) needs to be better qualified (and problematized). Which “tradition” is taken to apply here? What evidence can be offered for it?

 

 

2)    Language maintenance

a)     The title contains the word “promoting” (the use of Okinawan) but there is very little discussion in the paper of any deliberate act of “promotion”. If this is the specific angle that the study wishes to tackle, then this has to be made more prominent from the outset.

b)    Hammine’s work is discussed on p. 17. If this study also wishes to address (as it seems) speaker’s attitudes to language use (by new speakers) then Hammine’s study needs to be reviewed at the outset (in a section labelled ‘literature review’) and frame the discussion.

c)     The strategies used by participants in various capacities to adopt honorifics which are both suitable to the perceived contexts and their own perceived identities (in their capacities as new speakers or other) are extremely interesting, but the focus on this strategic aspect (as well as its social significance in terms of the individuals’ needs but also for the community as a whole, its relation to dominant discourses etc.) must also be made more prominent from the outset, and the data presented in the (central) analytical section must be discussed more explicitly in relation to this angle.

 

3)    Historical context

a)     Although the paper refers to the linguistic habits of different generations, there is no mention of the broader historical context, and important phenomena like the active repression of local varieties only hinted at casually (e.g. the mention of hōgen fuda). A brief section at the beginning outlining the events affecting (language) education policy and the social changes in the use of language in the region over the period inhabited by the multiple generations observed seems necessary.

b)    Scattered comments – eg in 2.1.1. – could be brought together in a section on the historical context/changes so that the central section can be used to discuss the linguistic data (while cross-referencing the historical context)

 

4)    Data

a)     There is no description of the database used, ie where it was collected and how it was elicited, over what period of time, its size, how it was coded and how the data discussed in this paper were selected. This information is absolutely necessary and ought to be placed in a “methodology” section

b)    The reader is led to believe that some of the data discussed were spontaneously produced utterances but the fact that two identical utterances were discussed for the two families made me wonder whether these were not produced but instead shown to the participants so they could assess them instead. These utterances are also listed along some which appear in previous literature instead, and the reader is told that the participants did not produce these sentences. It does not seem appropriate to me to present and discuss usage and non-usage in the same fashion, and the latter could just be added in the prose rather than listed in the same format. The source for the data must be indicated explicitly, and the paper should only present and analyze actually occurring data (leaving the non-occurring data for a contrastive argument in the narrative).

c)     A more precise account and/or information are needed about the author’s own experience. Section 2 is very generic and as a result it has an ‘ad-hoc’ feeling (eg the episode of grandmother smiling in assessing the author’s use of honorification; the status of this episode is unclear: was this a routine response? A one-off? Which “time” is “that time”?). Uchinaa-Yamatoguchi is discussed in the same section but ought to be presented in a separate section outlining the language varieties under examination.

d)    Similarly unclear is the source of data after line 594. More precise information on all data sources is crucial.

 

5)    Register conventions

a)     The register is non-standard in several respects: punctuation, grammar, discursive conventions (eg. the way the author’s own family is referred to; some signposting for readers in opening/central/concluding sections, etc.)

b)    transcription conventions should also be spelled out, and the reader referred to the abbreviations early on

c)     tables should be tidied up

d)    when quoting previous research, the original (Japanese?) terms should be used, eg. in Table 1, with Kokken’s terminology.

e)    the autobiographical episode in 2.2. could possibly be better placed at the head of the paper, rather than in what should be the analytical section.  

 

 

6)    Conclusive remarks

a)     Overall recommendation: reconsider after major revisions.

b)    The content of this study consists of very valuable observations about the strategies adopted by language users in adapting to new roles and identities, under the pressure of the politics of language use and social changes of various kind. Very intelligent observations are made about how these strategies are implemented by different participants. Arguably, the paper qualifies as a qualitative/ethnographic study with a focus on language, but it does not quite follow the relative conventions, and this compounds its perceived weaknesses. A revision of structural, stylistic and presentation aspects, including a better theorization of politeness and honorification within it, language maintenance, more fine-grained account of the sociolinguistic context, more and more precise referencing of existing literature, would likely improve the value of the content discussed and warrant publication. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

I sincerely appreciate your taking the time to review my paper for me. And I apologize for the delay in responding.

Your unequivocal and detailed remarks were very beneficial. In particular, I thought your advice about "the Politeness/Honorifics and their theorization" (1 a,b, and d) was the most important. So I went back and read the paper related to these theories, which was challenging. I managed to add a short section to fix the crucial flaws.

As for the other points, I could not make significant revisions. Regarding the terminology you pointed out in 1c and 5d), I was also wondering if I should use Japanese terminologies such as "ʔuuhuu no dankai (ʔuuhuu の段階)" instead of "①Superior social status & guests.

But I'm not sure how many readers could understand the terminologies in Japanese, so I left them as they are. The terminologies I used in this paper are based on those in van der Lubbe (2020). The choice of terminology is always annoying. Maybe I should add Japanese terms adjoiningly.

I wish I could have reflected most of your suggestions in my paper. It was a shame not being able to correct many of them. I would like to apply what I have learned from your feedback to my future research activities.

Best wishes,

Author

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for this very interesting thought provoking article. I find this article very important because the author also discuss their results in terms of gender and intergenerational injustice. I have small suggestions that I could give.

1. On page 9, line 235, I see that the author use () to refer to KA (the wife), this was very helpful as a reader. Perhaps, the author could use such terms like "the wife" of the family A, "the husband" of the family B, occasionally to help understanding of the readers. 

2. When the author mentions about differences in the use of Okinawan between genders, the author could refer to previous research, particularly by Barbara Meek or Wesley Leonard. I think it is common that women tend to choose more dominant variety faster than men. It is probably important to bring previous research in other endangered, minoritized contexts as a reference. It is interesting and worth noting this tendency is seen in other endangered languages as well as the Ryukyus. 

3. I found a typo in line 393, page 11, "this I was the custom for wives ...."  In this sentence, "I" should be omitted. 

4. Another typo on page 14, line 492.  In the sentence, "it was triggered by a remark by Dr. Nobuyuki Tsukahara, a sociolinguistic who is 492 specialized on the Catalan language," a sociolinguistic should be a sociolinguist. 

5. Dr. Martha Tsutusi-Billins wrote a sociolinguistic research focusing on honorifics in Setouchi, Amami. I would like to suggest the author to citer her if possible. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

I sincerely appreciate your taking the time to review my paper for me. And I apologize for the delay in responding.

I had read Barbara Meek's paper but could not incorporate it into this issue due to time constraints. Thank you also for the references to Wesley Leonard and Martha Tsutusi-Billins. I couldn't include them this time, but I will start reading these articles for future reference. Thank you very much for your other detailed suggestions. They were all valuable advice.

Thank you very much.

Best wishes,
Author

Reviewer 3 Report

See attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3

First of all, I sincerely appreciate your taking the time to review my paper for me. Also, I apologize for the delay in responding. Your feedback has been very beneficial and affected the content of my paper's axes and the detailed points you made.

I was able to correct more than half of the comments you gave me, but there were some that I could not fix due to time constraints. In particular, I have added a short section on the Politeness Theory, which I recognized as very important, and I added a short section to fill the gap in preceding studies. I would be happy if this is an improvement.

I could not correct all of your points this time, but I would like to apply what I have learned from your feedback to my future research activities.

Best wishes,

Author

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I found this new version vastly more readable and clearer. The author has addressed the weaknesses in the theorizaiton of politeness which I pointed out and I believe this improves the clarity of the taxonomy they adopt. The author has also rephrased a number of tricky passages and I felt this made their intentions more transparent. The English is still in need of some polishing, especially so in the new sections of the abstract and the conclusions. Other revised sections (those with the most extensive revisions) read much better. Section 1.2 is a major improvement and now a very solid section.

 

 

Some details which could be address are listed below

l  In response to the authors reply to my report, when referring to the ‘original terminology in Table 1. I was mostly concerned with the term “Respond” which is not a noun (unlike other category terms in the first row. Is “Respond” meant to refer to “Response”? This is still not clear to me.

l  In Section 1.3, paragraph 4 is still problematic. The author states that 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”. This is only true when the Speaker is addressing an outgroup. When addressing the family member itself, honorification (of the same kind of the Okinawan example in 3) taarii-sai

…. is possible. Arguably similar honorification as 4) is also possible in Japanese.

l  Ex 6) now includes #ʔjaa : is # now being use to indicate zero morpheme (in this example and elsewhere in the paper)? Where is this explained? The example in 13) correctly uses Ø so I am unable to understand the new insertion in 6)

l  Line 594 pg 14: “some considerations for the husbands were observed”… is this intended to concern/attention? If so the singular would read better ““some consideration for the husbands was observed”

l  Line 665 p 16: I have never use > used….

l  On p. 18 the author says: “As we have seen in 1.2, Hammine (2021) has identified three types of traditional 737 speaker reactions. “ but I found no reference to Hammine in that section (and I had suggested using Hammine in the lit review also in my first report)

l  Some of my observations about the description of Data and methodology still hold (especially Data a) and b) in the first report). I still feel that the paper would benefit from a more precise account.

l  Why use “we” in the conclusions when the first person singular is used extensively in the rest of the paper?

l  Leftover from my questions in the first review: “in terms of categorization, it is not clear to me why “Honorifics for addressing nobles.” Are discussed under “personal pronouns” and not “addressee honorifics”. (if these are pronouns then perhaps the description should say “pronouns for nobles” and be accompanied by a literal translation, whatever that is)

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

Thank you very much for your valuable insights. I have revised the paper to reflect your input as much as possible.

Again, thank you for allowing me to strengthen our manuscript with your valuable comments and queries. I hope the third draft I provide below satisfactorily addresses the issues and concerns you have noted.

Sincerely,

Author

Reviewer 3 Report

The added explanations are convincing. I feel only a little bit uneasy about some minor uncertainties listed below.

 

20 criticize for their mistakes

è criticize their mistakes ?

 

22 language shift;

è language shift

Is “;” here necessary?

 

87-91 Good to have the explanation of the structure here already at the beginning of the paper. The content, however, is quite similar to 266-268. The orientation given here at the beginning could be more general, in order to avoid repetition.

 

139-142 “Sometimes social registers have become part of the local variety in those localities where many warriors or commoners had lived always use the warrior or commoner honorifics, respectively.”

è I still don’t understand this sentence. Maybe “who had lived”?

 

152 “Affirmative and negative questions answer words”

è This English sounds syntactically awkward. Better: “Answering words to affirmative and negative questions”? See also the wording of this topic in other places of this paper.

 

252 I am familiar with this term, and agree that generally what happened in Okinawa was a colonization of mind. But I still don’t understand how to apply the term “colonization of the mind” here in this concrete case where family members prohibited the use of the language due to honorific problems. Were the minds of the uncles and aunts colonized or the author’s mind? And in what sense?

 

257 the word “from” appears twice.

 

373  “(In”: delete “(“ ?    The problem is that I cannot find the closing “)”.

 

595 Why is “avoiding the use of honorifics” “Social changes notwithstanding”?

The social change would suggest to avoid honorifics, so it is following social change, I guess.

 

652, 655 Was there any progress between 2020 and 2022 in the behavior of the father? Till around 2020 he responded in Japanese and in 2022 he is beginning to speak in Okinawan. How did he react in the meantime? How should the reader understand the unexplained two years?

 

663 “Here are some examples I use for my fathers”

è The sentence seems to be incomplete.

 

680-681 “perhaps also for the listener (my father)” Why not ask the father?

 

722 sections 2.1-2.3

è sections 2.1-2.2  ?

 

727 criticize for

è criticize ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

Thank you very much for your valuable insights. I have revised the paper to reflect your input as much as possible.

Again, thank you for allowing me to strengthen our manuscript with your valuable comments and queries. I hope the third draft I provide below satisfactorily addresses the issues and concerns you have noted.

Sincerely,

Author