Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T22:06:57.358Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tóngzhì in China: Language change and its conversational consequences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Carol Myers Scotton  and
Zhu Wanjin
Carol Myers Scotton
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Michigan State University
Zhu Wanjin
Affiliation:
Department of Western LanguagesPeking University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper discusses the use of the title of address, tóngzhì ‘comrade’, in the People's Republic of China today. Empirical data are presented which were gathered to test a set of hypotheses about the unmarked and marked uses of this term. In its unmarked sense, it is a neutral term of address implying conventionalized solidarity. However, in its marked sense its use becomes a negotiation to change the social distance between Speaker and Addressee. We argue that tóngzhì has variable meanings and uses because its usage represents a language change in progress. Finally, we propose a general hypothesis that variation in linguistic forms such as tóngzhì is exploited by speakers to negotiate rights and obligations within a talk exchange. Speakers use the ambiguity which variable meanings and uses create as a cover for negotiating interpersonal position without going on record. We suggest that this possibility to exploit variation may explain how certain structures evolve in language and why they are maintained. (Sociolinguistics, conversational analysis, language change, terms of address, markedness, Chinese)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , December 1983 , pp. 477 - 494
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Goody, E. (ed.), Questions and politeness. Cambridge University Press. 56–289.Google Scholar
Brown, R., & Ford, M. (1964). Address in American English. In Hymes, D. (ed.), Language in culture and society. New York: Harper & Row. 234–44.Google Scholar
Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Sebeok, T. (ed.), Style in language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT and Wiley. 252–76.Google Scholar
Reprinted in Fishman, J. (ed.), Readings in the sociology of language. The Hague: Mouton, 1968. 252–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chao, Y. R. (1956). Chinese terms of address. Language 31(1):217–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1973). The structure of communicative choice. Language acquisition and communicative choice. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 302–73.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1976). Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society 5:25–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedrich, P. (1966). Structural implications of Russian pronominal usage. In Bright, W. (ed.), Sociolinguistics. The Hague: Mouton. 215–54.Google Scholar
Friedrich, P. (1967). The linguistic reflex of social change: From Tsarist to Soviet Russian kinship. International Journal of American Linguistics 33(4) “Explorations in Sociolinguistics” (S. Lieberson, ed.): 31–57.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press. 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong, B. (1979). Language change and social integration in small groups in China. Paper presented at the International Conference on Communication,University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In Pride, J. & Holmes, J. (eds.), Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 269–93.Google Scholar
Kendall, M. (1980). Interpretative rules and semantics: A critique of deterministic models in sociolinguistics. Manuscript.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman's place. Language in Society 2:48–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. N. (1974). Semantics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Martin, S. E. (1964). Speech levels in Japan and Korea. In Hymes, D. (ed), Language in culture and society. New York: Harper & Row. 407–15.Google Scholar
Rubin, J. (1977). New insights into the nature of language change offered by language planning. In Blount, B. & Sanches, M. (eds.), Socio-cultural dimensions of language change. New York: Academic Press. 243–69.Google Scholar
Rubin, J., & Jemudd, B. (eds.) (1971). Can language be planned? Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Rubin, J., Jernudd, B., Das, Gupta J., Fishman, J., & Ferguson, C. (eds.) (1977). Language planning processes. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scotton, C. M. (1979). Code choice: The negotiation of identities in conversation. Paper presented at the LSA Annual Meeting,Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Scotton, C. M. (in press 1983). The negotiation of identities in conversation: A theory of markedness and code choice. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 44.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W., & Herzog, M. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, W. & Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press. 95–188.Google Scholar
Yan, Y. (1980). Mariners. Dāngdài (Journal of Contemporary Chinese Literature) 4. Beijing: People's Literature Press.Google Scholar
Zhu, W. (1981). Changes in the Chinese address system. Manuscript.Google Scholar