Стратегії називання осіб у японській бізнес-комунікації

Abstract

The article analyses the strategies of referring to persons in talks between different companies based on data of two dialogues taken from the 『合本 女性のことば・男性のことば (職場編)』 (Bound volume. Women’s speech. Men’s speech (Workplace edition)).

We have revealed that participants choose a basic model of referring, which can be binary (consists of referring forms for both sides of negotiations) or ordinary (has referring form for themselves only). Our data shows two binary and two ordinary basic models.

In business communication participants refer to themselves and others as representatives of company. Referring forms depict a company as a place or inner space, and each representative as its part. When necessary, speakers refer to themselves or others as single persons by using verbs concerning an action of the person without changing the basic model of referring, or choose to use a different referring model with the singular meaning.

The data also shows a higher occurrence of referring models to themselves and their side, compared to the other side. On the referring to the second and the third person (side) restrictions are imposed, which is clear from the fact of the absence or minimal presence of such referring models in the speech of some participants of negotiations. These restrictions are especially noticeable in the speech of the participant which is in a dependent position (i.e. receives an order).

Referring to the second person and his (her) side is minimal and its emergence depends on syntactic or pragmatic factors. Proper names in referring to the second person individualize a business communication and emphasize an attention to him (her) and his (her) company.

A speaker doesn’t necessarily avoid a referring to himself (herself), with it he (she) emphasizes an active position in his (her) company.

Depending on the evaluation of the power balance, speaker can situate other persons and companies closer to or farther from his (her) company (i.e. closer to interlocutor). The former doesn’t need honorific markers, unlike the latter.

In this article we show the tendency to mitigate the agentivity of the person which is referred to, and the means of such mitigation in business communication.