Abstract
This study examines phonetic cues used to express politeness in spoken Japanese. The tasks of producing polite and non-polite speech in two different types of sentences (a question and a polite imperative) and in attitudinal speech (a request and a decline) were used to examine various F0 and temporal aspects of polite speech. Eight sentences spoken by 18 native speakers were acoustically measured at both sentence level and sentence final mora level. It was found that Japanese native speakers generally use a slower speech rate and a breathy voice for polite speech, but not necessarily a high pitched voice or wider pitch range, even in the case of female speakers. The use of pitch was found to be attitude dependent, but was not affected by the sentence type. Clear gender differences were seen in various phonetic aspects. Some politeness strategies observed at individual level are also reported.
Acknowledgements
I thank the Griffith Social and Behavioural Research College for their statistical support and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. This study was funded by Hakuhō Foundation International Fellowship 2015, Tokyo, Japan.
Appendices
A Appendix
Linguistic Background of Participants
| Speaker ID number PSF=Female PSM=Male | Age | Occupation | Length of residence in the metropolitan area if not born in the area. |
|---|---|---|---|
| PSF 01 | 44 | Teacher | 38 years (from Hokkaido) |
| PSF 02 | 38 | Office worker | |
| PSF 03 | 49 | Office worker | |
| PSF 04 | 48 | Office worker | 28 years (from Hokkaido) |
| PSF 05 | 38 | Librarian | |
| PSF 06 | 55 | Librarian | |
| PSF 07 | 50 | Teacher | |
| PSF 08 | 37 | Teacher | |
| PSF 09 | 54 | Office worker | |
| Average | 45 | ||
| PSM 01 | 32 | Office worker | |
| PSM 02 | 42 | Office worker | 24 years (from Shiga) |
| PSM 03 | 57 | Office worker | |
| PSM 04 | 39 | Teacher | |
| PSM 05 | 28 | Researcher | |
| PSM 06 | 63 | Office worker | |
| PSM 07 | 57 | Office worker | |
| PSM 08 | 59 | Office worker | 20 years (from Yamaguchi) |
| PSM 09 | 48 | Office worker | |
| Average | 45 | ||
B Appendix
Coefficients for Figure 1 <Average pitch>
| Coefficients | Posterior Mean | (80% Credible interval) | Bayesian p-value | Inclusion Probability | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 6.95 | (5.23, | 8.69) | 0 | 100 |
| Decline | -0.81 | (-1.91, | 0.28) | 0.17 | 3.8 |
| Statement | 1.33 | (-1.12, | 3.79) | 0.24 | 3.7 |
| Polite | -2.94 | (-5.38, | -0.5) | 0.06 | 3.8 |
| Male | 0.57 | (-1.88, | 3.02) | 0.38 | 7.2 |
| Statement: Decline | -0.72 | (-2.27, | 0.83) | 0.27 | 3.6 |
| Statement: Polite | -1.79 | (-5.25, | 1.69) | 0.25 | 3.4 |
| Decline: Polite | 1.68 | (0.12, | 3.22) | 0.08 | 3.5 |
| Decline: Male | -0.14 | (-1.69, | 1.4) | 0.45 | 4.6 |
| Statement: Male | -1.49 | (-4.94, | 1.98) | 0.29 | 3.7 |
| Polite: Male | 2.09 | (-1.38, | 5.56) | 0.22 | 4 |
| Decline: Statement: Polite | 1.45 | (-0.74, | 3.65) | 0.2 | 3.9 |
| Decline: Statement: Male | 0.92 | (-1.27, | 3.11) | 0.29 | 3.6 |
| Decline: Polite: Male | -0.95 | (-3.15, | 1.23) | 0.29 | 4.2 |
| Statement: Polite: Male | 0.17 | (-4.71, | 5.04) | 0.48 | 3.4 |
| Decline: Statement: Polite: Male | -0.77 | (-3.85, | 2.31) | 0.37 | 3.4 |
C Appendix
Coefficients for Figure 2 <Pitch range>
| Coefficients | Posterior Mean | (80% Credible interval) | Bayesian p-value | Inclusion Probability | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 12.32 | (10.15, | 14.51) | 0 | 100 |
| Decline | 2.39 | (-0.70, | 5.49) | 0.16 | 11.9 |
| Statement | 0.71 | (-2.38, | 3.80) | 0.38 | 3.9 |
| Polite | 3.43 | (0.36, | 6.51) | 0.08 | 5.9 |
| Male | 2.4 | (-0.68, | 5.5) | 0.16 | 2.6 |
| Decline: Statement | -2.59 | (-6.94, | 1.8) | 0.22 | 4.4 |
| Decline: Polite* | -7.99 | (-12.35, | -3.62) | 0.01 | 68.7 |
| Statement: Polite | -3.84 | (-8.19, | 0.53) | 0.13 | 5.3 |
| Decline: Male | -5.01 | (-9.36, | -0.64) | 0.07 | 4.9 |
| Statement: Male | -1.98 | (-6.37, | 2.4) | 0.28 | 2.5 |
| Polite: Male | -1.3 | (-5.67, | 3.08) | 0.35 | 4.7 |
| Decline: Statement: Polite | 7.37 | (1.17, | 13.55) | 0.06 | 5.9 |
| Decline: Statement: Male | 5.15 | (-1.04, | 11.31) | 0.14 | 2.6 |
| Decline: Polite: Male | 5.98 | (-0.16, | 12.12) | 0.11 | 4.9 |
| Statement: Polite: Male | 2.31 | (-3.9, | 8.48) | 0.32 | 2.3 |
| Decline: Statement: Polite: Male | -9.16 | (-17.92, | -0.41) | 0.09 | 5.6 |
Both low Bayesian p-value and high inclusion probability
D Appendix
Coefficients for Figure 3 <Speech rate>
| Coefficients | Posterior Mean | (80% Credible interval) | Bayesian p-value | Inclusion Probability | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 8.56 | (7.72, | 9.41) | 0 | 100 |
| Decline# | -0.04 | (-0.58, | 0.49) | 0.46 | 60.7 |
| Statement* | 1.83 | (0.63, | 3.03) | 0.03 | 88.7 |
| Polite | -0.22 | (-1.41, | 0.97) | 0.41 | 34.9 |
| Male* | 2.11 | (0.91, | 3.31) | 0.01 | 100 |
| Decline: Statement | -0.79 | (-1.54, | -0.03) | 0.09 | 20.8 |
| Decline: Polite# | -0.38 | (-1.14, | 0.37) | 0.26 | 67.2 |
| Statement: Polite | -0.57 | (-2.26, | 1.13) | 0.33 | 9.9 |
| Decline: Male | -0.63 | (-1.39, | 0.13) | 0.14 | 30.6 |
| Statement: Male | -1.45 | (-3.15, | 0.25) | 0.14 | 4.8 |
| Polite: Male | -0.03 | (-1.73, | 1.67) | 0.49 | 2.9 |
| Decline: Statement: Polite | 0.45 | (-0.62, | 1.52) | 0.29 | 6.3 |
| Decline: Statement: Male | 0.69 | (-0.39, | 1.77) | 0.2 | 6.2 |
| Decline: Polite: Male | -0.03 | (-1.1, | 1.04) | 0.49 | 3 |
| Statement: Polite: Male | 0.66 | (-1.74, | 3.06) | 0.36 | 3 |
| Decline: Statement: Polite: Male | -0.23 | (-1.75, | 1.29) | 0.42 | 3 |
Both low Bayesian p-value and high inclusion probability
#High inclusion probability (over 50%)
E Appendix
Coefficients for Figure 4 <Breathiness>
| Coefficients | Posterior Mean | (80% Credible interval) | Bayesian p-value | Inclusion Probability | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 0.79 | (-2.95, | 4.55) | 0.4 | 100 |
| Decline | -0.23 | (-2.6, | 2.14) | 0.45 | 2.9 |
| Statement | 2.24 | (-3.07, | 7.54) | 0.29 | 2.9 |
| Polite* | 4.98 | (-0.29, | 10.28) | 0.11 | 93.7 |
| Male | -1.55 | (-6.85, | 3.77) | 0.35 | 5.9 |
| Decline: Statement | -0.91 | (-4.26, | 2.45) | 0.36 | 2.9 |
| Decline: Polite | -0.47 | (-3.83, | 2.87) | 0.43 | 9.7 |
| Statement: Polite | -1.31 | (-8.8, | 6.20) | 0.41 | 2.9 |
| Decline: Male | 2.70 | (-0.66, | 6.07) | 0.15 | 14.3 |
| Statement: Male | -1.34 | (-8.88, | 6.19) | 0.41 | 3.3 |
| Polite: Male | -1.94 | (-9.46, | 5.57) | 0.37 | 10.2 |
| Decline: Statement: Polite | -0.12 | (-4.87, | 4.64) | 0.49 | 3 |
| Decline: Statement: Male | -0.08 | (-4.84, | 4.70) | 0.49 | 3.5 |
| Decline: Polite: Male | -1.38 | (-6.12, | 3.35) | 0.36 | 8.7 |
| Statement: Polite: Male | 2.63 | (-8.03, | 13.24) | 0.38 | 2.9 |
| Decline: Statement: Polite: Male | 0.14 | (-6.57, | 6.89) | 0.49 | 2.9 |
Both low Bayesian p-value and high inclusion probability
F Appendix
Coefficients for Figure 5<Intensity range>
| Coefficients | Posterior Mean | (80% Credible interval) | Bayesian p-value | Inclusion Probability | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 39.07 | (35.12, | 43.05) | 0 | 100 |
| Decline | -4.26 | (-6.77, | -1.76) | 0.02 | 9.1 |
| Statement | -6.73 | (-12.34, | -1.12) | 0.06 | 46.3 |
| Polite | -5.57 | (-11.13, | 0.03) | 0.1 | 6.2 |
| Male | -7.77 | (-13.37, | -2.15) | 0.04 | 11.1 |
| Decline: Statement | 2.81 | (-0.73, | 6.37) | 0.15 | 9.7 |
| Decline: Polite | 2.66 | (-0.89, | 6.20) | 0.17 | 3.5 |
| Statement: Polite# | 0.32 | (-7.59, | 8.26) | 0.48 | 52.3 |
| Decline: Male | 3.28 | (-0.27, | 6.84) | 0.12 | 9.9 |
| Statement: Male | 5.28 | (-2.70, | 13.23) | 0.2 | 4.7 |
| Polite: Male | 7.9 | (-0.04, | 15.84) | 0.1 | 2.8 |
| Decline: Statement: Polite | -0.58 | (-5.59, | 4.45) | 0.44 | 10.3 |
| Decline: Statement: Male | -2.28 | (-7.31, | 2.77) | 0.28 | 2.6 |
| Decline: Polite: Male | -3.64 | (-8.65, | 1.36) | 0.18 | 3.2 |
| Statement: Polite: Male | -8.79 | (-20.05, | 2.42) | 0.16 | 3.6 |
| Decline: Statement: Polite: Male | 4.82 | (-2.27, | 11.95) | 0.19 | 3.9 |
High inclusion probability (over 50%)
G Appendix
Coefficients for Figure 6 <Duration of final syllable>
| Coefficients | Posterior Mean | (80% Credible interval) | Bayesian p-value | Inclusion Probability | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 0.25 | (0.19, | 0.31) | 0 | 100 |
| Decline | 0.00 | (-0.03, | 0.04) | 0.43 | 1.3 |
| Statement# | 0.03 | (-0.05, | 0.11) | 0.34 | 55.7 |
| Polite | 0.01 | (-0.08, | 0.09) | 0.46 | 6.5 |
| Male# | -0.05 | (-0.13, | 0.04) | 0.23 | 87.9 |
| Decline: Statement | -0.01 | (-0.06, | 0.05) | 0.43 | 20.9 |
| Decline: Polite | -0.01 | (-0.06, | 0.04) | 0.42 | 5.2 |
| Statement: Polite | 0.03 | (-0.09, | 0.14) | 0.38 | 39.5 |
| Decline: Male | 0.00 | (-0.05, | 0.05) | 0.48 | 13.3 |
| Statement: Male | 0 | (-0.12, | 0.12) | 0.5 | 4.3 |
| Polite: Male | 0 | (-0.11, | 0.12) | 0.49 | 2.6 |
| Decline: Statement: Polite | 0.02 | (-0.06, | 0.09) | 0.38 | 15.2 |
| Decline: Statement: Male | 0.02 | (-0.06, | 0.09) | 0.38 | 3.4 |
| Decline: Polite: Male | 0.01 | (-0.06, | 0.09) | 0.41 | 2.5 |
| Statement: Polite: Male | 0 | (-0.16, | 0.17) | 0.49 | 5.4 |
| Decline: Statement: Polite: Male | -0.04 | (-0.14, | 0.06) | 0.31 | 6.5 |
High inclusion probability (over 50%)
H Appendix
Coefficients for Figure 7 <Pitch direction in final syllable>
| Coefficients | Posterior Mean | (80% Credible interval) | Bayesian p-value | Inclusion Probability | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 7.11 | (2.53, | 11.72) | 0.02 | 100 |
| Decline | -1.23 | (-4.14, | 1.66) | 0.29 | 6.8 |
| Statement* | -7.68 | (-14.19, | -1.19) | 0.06 | 93.8 |
| Polite | 0.85 | (-5.60, | 7.34) | 0.43 | 3.6 |
| Male* | -9.32 | (-15.81, | -2.8) | 0.03 | 94.7 |
| Decline: Statement | -0.5 | (-4.60, | 3.62) | 0.44 | 14.2 |
| Decline: Polite | -0.82 | (-4.93, | 3.28) | 0.4 | 3 |
| Statement: Polite | 0.40 | (-9.57, | 8.80) | 0.48 | 3 |
| Decline: Male | 2.29 | (-1.82, | 6.42) | 0.24 | 8.4 |
| Statement: Male# | 4.85 | (-4.39, | 14.07) | 0.25 | 76.7 |
| Polite: Male | 3.3 | (-5.90, | 12.51) | 0.32 | 4.9 |
| Decline: Statement: Polite | 0.55 | (-5.26, | 6.38) | 0.45 | 3.1 |
| Decline: Statement: Male | 1.55 | (-4.28, | 7.40) | 0.37 | 26.3 |
| Decline: Polite: Male | -0.68 | (-6.49, | 5.11) | 0.44 | 3.6 |
| Statement: Polite: Male | 2.16 | (-10.9, | 15.15) | 0.42 | 3.1 |
| Decline: Statement: Polite: Male | -2.71 | (-10.93, | 5.56) | 0.34 | 3 |
Both low Bayesian p-value and high inclusion probability High inclusion probability (over 50%)
References
Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2015. Praat: doing phonetics by computer (version 6.0.0.4), http://www.praat.org [computer program] (accessed 20 November 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Lucien, Bodo Winter, Kaori Idemaru & Sven Grawunder. 2014. Phonetics and politeness: Perceiving Korean honorific and non-honorific speech through phonetic cues. Journal of Pragmatics 66. 45–60.10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.011Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813085Search in Google Scholar
Bunka shingikai tōshin [Council for Cultural Affairs]. 2007. Keigo no shishin [Instruction for Honorifics]. http://www.bunka.go.jp/seisaku/bunkashingikai/sokai/sokai_6/pdf/keigo_tousin.pdf (accessed 16 September 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Grawunder, Sven & Bodo Winter. 2010. Acoustic correlates of politeness: Prosodic and voice quality measures in polite and informal speech of Korean and German speakers. Proceedings of Speech Prosody, Chicago, IL. http://isle.illinois.edu/sprosig/sp2010/program.html (accessed 7 October 2013).Search in Google Scholar
Gu, Wentao, Tina Zhang & Hiroya Fujisaki. 2011. Prosodic analysis and perception of Mandarin utterances conveying attitudes. INTERSPEECH Florence, Italy, Proceedings. 1069–1072. http://www.isca-speech.org/archive/archive_papers/interspeech_2011/i11_1069.pdf10.21437/Interspeech.2011-402Search in Google Scholar
Idemaru, Kaori, Bodo Winter & Lucien Brown. 2015. The role of pitch in perceiving politeness in Korean. 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Glasgow, UK, Proceedings. https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/icphs-proceedings/ICPhS2015/proceedings.html (accessed 9 October 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Ito, Mika. 2003. Breathiness and politeness: An experimental study of male speakers of Japanese. 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona, Spain, Proceedings. 2165–2168.Search in Google Scholar
Loveday, Leo. 1981. Pitch, politeness and sexual role: An exploratory investigation into the pitch correlates of English and Japanese politeness formulae. Language and Speech 24(1). 71–89.10.1177/002383098102400105Search in Google Scholar
Menezes, Caroline, Donna Erickson & Clayton Franks. 2010. Comparison between linguistic and affective perception of sad and happy – A cross-linguistic study. Proceedings of Speech Prosody, Chicago, Illinois. http://isle.illinois.edu/sprosig/sp2010/program.html (accessed 7 October 2013).Search in Google Scholar
Nadeu, Marianna & Pilar Prieto. 2011. Pitch range, gestural information, and perceived politeness in Catalan. Journal of Pragmatics 43(3). 841–854.10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.015Search in Google Scholar
Nagara, Susumu. 1990. Japanese for everyone: A functional approach to daily communication, 1st edn. Japan: Gakken.Search in Google Scholar
Nichibeikaiwagakuin Nihongokenkyūsho. [The Japanese language research institute]. 1987. Nihongo de Bijinesu Kaiwa Chūkyūhen [Business conversation in Japanese, Intermediate level]. Tokyo: Bonjinsha.Search in Google Scholar
Ofuka, Etsuko, Denis J. McKeown, Mitch G. Waterman & Peter, J. Roarch. 2000. Prosodic cues for rated politeness in Japanese speech. Speech Communication 32(3). 199–217.10.1016/S0167-6393(00)00009-1Search in Google Scholar
Ogino, Tsunao & Min Shao Hong. 1992. Nihongo onsei no teineisa ni kansuru kenkyū [A study on politeness in Japanese speech]. In Tetsuya Kunihiro (ed.), Nihongo intonēshon no Jittai to Bunseki [The state of the art and analysis of Japanese Intonation], 215–258. Tokyo: Ministry of Education.Search in Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1984. An ethological perspective on common cross-language utilization of F0 in voice. Phonetica 41(1). 1–16.10.1159/000261706Search in Google Scholar
Ohara, Yumiko. 2001. Finding one’s voice in Japanese: A study of the pitch levels of L2 users. In Aneta Pavienko, Adrian Brackledge, Ingrid Piller & Marya Teutsch-Dwyer (eds.), Multilingualism, Second Language Learning, and Gender, 231–254. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 2007. The evolutionary social psychology of off-record indirect speech act. Intercultural Pragmatics 4. 437–461.10.1515/IP.2007.023Search in Google Scholar
Pizziconi, Barbara. 2007. The lexical mapping of politeness in British English and Japanese. Journal of Politeness Research 3(2). 207–241.10.1515/PR.2007.010Search in Google Scholar
Reynolds, Akiba Katsue. 1985. Female speakers of Japanese. Gender Issues 5(2). 13–46.10.1007/BF02685576Search in Google Scholar
Rietveld, Toni, Judith Haan, Linda Heijmans & Carlos Gussenhoven. 2002. Explaining attitudinal ratings of Dutch rising contours: Morphological structure vs. the frequency code. Phonetica 59(2-3). 180–194.10.1159/000066069Search in Google Scholar
Shochi, Takaaki, Albert Rilliard, Auberge Veronique & Donna Erickson. 2009. Intercultural perception of English, Japanese and French social affective prosody. In Hancil Sylvie (ed.), The role of prosody in affective speech, 31–59. Bern: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Tsurutani, Chiharu. 2016. Prosodic characteristics of Japanese polite speech spoken by native speakers. NINJAL Research papers, National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics. Vol. 11, July issue 167–180.Search in Google Scholar
Uchiyama, Kazuya. 2010. Teineina hyōgen. [Polite expressions]. (Keigo ni tsuite [About honorifics]). http://web.ydu.edu.tw/~uchiyama/conv/keigo.html (accessed 16 September 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Winter, Bodo & Sven Grawunder. 2011. The polite voice in Korean: searching for acoustic correlates of contaymal and panmal. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 19. 419–431.Search in Google Scholar
Yoon, Kyung-Joo. 2004. Not just words: Korean social modes and the use of honorifics. Intercultural Pragmatics 1(2). 189–210.10.1515/iprg.2004.1.2.189Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
