Doi: 10. 2478/topling-2015-0001 On the categorization of the Japanese honorific system Keigo

mairimashita 
(‘It started to rain.’ – see ex. 
18) or Hidarigawa ni otera ga miete 
mairimashita 
(‘A temple appeared on the 
left’). Some authors do not distinguish these 
cases from the last mentioned category. But, 
for example, ishi classifies the use of the 
verb mairu in ex. 16 as kenj
ōgo II, while its 
use in ex. 18 is classified as teich
ōgo. 
Another specific case is the morphosyntactic 
structure o-/go-V itasu. The reason it is 
difficult 
to 
classify 
within 
the 
basic 
categories is that it raises the status of the 
recipient of the action, but at the same time 
the use of the verb itasu creates a formal 
and polite effect on the listener. Therefore, 
some authors classify it in a separate 
category (see above). This is meaningful in 
the sense that it makes the speaker realize 
that by using the structure o-V itasu instead 
of o-V suru the speaker does not express a 
higher degree of politeness toward the 
recipient of the communicated action (to the 
professor in ex. 5b above) but to the 
listener. For this reason it is not appropriate 
to use this structure in communication with 
a close person (as in ex. 5b).
In addition, the category of teineigo has not 
been preserved in either of the described 
models to the same extent as in the 
traditional 3-category division. Miyaji uses 
the term teineigo for the polite copulas desu, 
de gozaimasu and polite form -masu, which 
corresponds with Tsujimura’s taisha keigo 
(‘addressee honorifics’), Watanabe’s kikite 
keigo 
(‘keigo to the listener’) and 
ishi
’s 
teich
ōgo B. Kabaya, Kawaguchi and 
Sakamoto use the term buntai keigo (style 
keigo). Expressions that were removed from 
the traditional category of teineigo are 
expressions now most commonly referred to 
as bikago 
(‘beautification words’).
However, a consensus has not been reached 
yet on their categorization within the system 
of keigo. The effort to classify them 
separately from teineigo is obvious; however, 
their categorization within the honorific 
system varies. Tsujimura, who introduced 
the category of bikago, placed it in the 
category of referent honorifics, perceiving 
‘beautification words’ to be ‘affected by 
considerations regarding the content matter’ 
(Pizziconi, 2011, p. 49). Such expressions 
are, according to Tsujimura, often used in 
consideration of the listener, but not always 
– the speaker can also use them when 
talking exclusively to him/herself. The use of 
bikago 
is mainly motivated by the speaker’s 
concern for the quality of the expression 
itself, reflecting his/her own dignity and 
refinement. This understanding is supported 
by Miyaji as well as Watanabe, who labels the 
category tashinami 
(‘concern for self’), which 
roughly corresponds to the more common 
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 9/29/17 2:23 PM

---

Topics in Linguistics - Issue 15 
– June 2015 
term bikago. 
ishi, who in his later 
classification replaced the term bikago with 
the term j
ōhingo (‘refined words’), removed 
this category from the system of keigo. If we 
understand bikago as expressions that do 
not directly reflect the relationship between 
the participants in communication but 
express the refinement and dignity of the 
speaker’s utterances, we can agree that 
bikago really stands outside this system. 
However, if we understand them as 
motivated also by the concern for the 
listener, we can definitely include them in 
the system. 
The models by contemporary authors 
introduced above differ, in addition to their 
terminology and the way they approach the 
system, in the level of detail of the division. 
The effort to reflect all possible differences 
in the function and meaning of individual 
forms leads to a very detailed division (see 
e.g. Kabaya, Kawaguchi and Sakamoto), 
which depicts the system of Japanese 
honorifics quite well. However, it is a 
question of whether such a detailed 
categorization is not counterproductive in 
that it makes the essence of keigo even 
harder to comprehend. From this point of 
view a less detailed classification which 
reflects major similarities and differences 
seems more advantageous.