Address Terms in Japanese, Indonesian and Sundanese
As Politeness Strategy in Apology Speech Act
Nuria Haristiani and Renariah Renariah
Japanese Language Education Department,Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia,
Jl. Dr. Setiabudhi No. 229, Bandung, Indonesia
Keywords: Address Term, Term of Self, Politeness Strategy, Apology, Speech Act.
Abstract: The purpose of this study is to compare the use of address terms in intercultural context, which are in
Japanese, Indonesian and Sundanese, and to analyse the tendency of their function as politeness strategy.
The data in this study were collected by Discourse Completion Test, which investigated eight apology
scenes focused on human relations and situation differences. The participants in this study were 60 Japanese
Native Speakers (JNS), 58 Indonesian Native Speakers (INS), and 54 Sundanese Native Speakers (SNS).
Address terms collected from the data then categorized into “Terms of self” and “Address terms”. The
results suggested that the INS and SNS used “Terms of self” and “Address terms” in various numbers and
expressions to show their consideration to the addressee, while on the contrary, JNS avoid or use less
“Terms of self” and “Address terms” to express their consideration to the addressee. It is clear that as a
politeness strategy, Japanese native speakers tend to minimalize the use of address terms as an attempt to
maintain addressee’s negative face as negative politeness strategy, while Indonesian and Sundanese native
speakers used address terms as positive politeness strategy to maintain their addressee’s positive face.
1 INTRODUCTION
Address terms are words or linguistic expression that
speakers use to appeal directly to their addressees. In
English, for instance, Sir is used in addressing only,
but other words such as you, Helen, daddy, darling,
or Professor Brown have other functions as well as
they are used to talk about other persons rather than
to talk to them directly, and you can be used
generically (Jucker and Taatvitsainen, 2003). The
forms of address terms of address are including
pronouns, nouns, verb forms and other affixes
(Braun, 1988). Suzuki (1973) examined the rules for
using address terms in Japanese by dividing address
terms into two classifications: 1) Jishoushi (term of
self), and 2) Tashoushi (address term). There are
many studies about address terms in Japanese from
many perspectives. Lee (1991) studied about how
address of terms and term of self in Japanese are
used in Japanese and examined about how those use
is omitted in speeches. Other than this study, the use
of address terms in text books (Ohama, 2001). In
other languages, the function of address terms in
sociolinguistics context involves gender difference
also has been examined (Kim, 2015; Afful, 2010;
Rendell-Short, 2009).
Furthermore, in speech act studies, there has
been stated that address terms used in many
languages with their own characteristics. Especially
in apology speech act, Japanese native speakers tend
to use much less address terms compared to Chinese
native speakers (Kusumoto, 2010), English native
speakers (Boyckman and Usami, 2005), and Korean
native speakers (Jung, 2011). Similar to this
tendency, Japanese native speakers also tend to use
less address terms compared to Indonesian native
speakers in apology situations (Takadono, 2000;
Haristiani, 2012). These mean that the use of address
terms in speech acts has different functions and
meaning according to its language and culture
background. In spite of these tendency, there is still
no further inquiry about why Japanese prefer to use
less address terms in apology situation (or other
situations in general), and why in some language
such as Indonesian use so many address terms in
apology situation (or in other situations in general).
To fill this gap, this study aimed to analyse the
use of address terms in apology situations in
different languages and culture background, which
Haristiani, N. and Renariah, R.
Address Terms in Japanese, Indonesian and Sundanese - As Politeness Strategy in Apology Speech Act.
DOI: 10.5220/0007168504230428
In Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference
on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education (CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017) - Literacy, Culture, and Technology in Language Pedagogy and Use, pages 423-428
ISBN: 978-989-758-332-2
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
423

are in Japanese, Indonesian and Sundanese. The
address terms data collected in this study then
analysed based on Brown and Levinson’s (1987)
politeness theory to determine their function as
politeness strategy.
2 RESEARCH METHOD
2.1 Data Collection and Participants
The data in this study collected through an open
questionnaire which is a “Discourse Completion
Test” (DCT). The DCT was originally conducted as
an inquiry about apology speech act, and the address
terms data used in this study is a part from overall
data collected. The data was collected in Hiroshima
University-Japan, and Universitas Pendidikan
Indonesia-Indonesia. Respondents for this study
were 60 Japanese Native Speakers (JNS), 58
Indonesian Native Speakers (INS), and 54
Sundanese Native Speakers (SNS). All research
objects were undergraduate and graduate students
with average age of 23 years old for JNS, 22.5 years
old for INS, and 22 years old for SNS.
2.2 Discourse Completion Test (DCT)
The DCT used in this study includes 2 apology
situations which are, 1) Apology Situation (“Forgot
to return borrowed book”), and 2) Misunderstood
Situation (“Asked to return the book before promised
due”).
Pronominal forms of address often distinguish
between a familiar or intimate pronoun, and a distant
or polite pronoun on the other (Jucker and
Taatvitsainen, 2003). Hence, to find out about the
difference between address terms used in intimate
and non-intimate relations, besides two different
situations mentioned above, this study also observes
the social distance between the speaker (addresser)
with the hearer (addressee) and set as described as
follows:
1) Status un-equals, intimates: Intimate Lecturer
(IL)
2) Status un-equals, non-intimates: Non-intimate
Lecturer (NL)
3) Status equals, intimates: Intimate Friend (IF)
4) Status equals, non-intimates: Non-intimate
Friend (NF)
Abbreviations above will be used along analysis
in results and discussion to simplify and shorten
explanations.
2.3 Data Analysis
Address terms collected from DCT data then
classified into ‘Term of self’ (Jishoushi) and
‘Address terms’ (Tashoushi). “Term of self”
(Jishoushi) is a pronominal term that the speaker
(addresser) used to mentions himself/herself, and the
so called first-person is only small part of it. In the
other hand, ‘Address terms’ (Tashoushi) is a generic
term of words to refer to the hearer (addressee)
(Suzuki, 1973). The data classified into ‘Term of
self’ and ‘Address terms’ then analysed
quantitatively and qualitatively. Quantitative
analysis conducted by calculating the frequency of
address terms usage overall, and then calculating the
frequency of ‘Term of self’ and ‘Address terms’ in
‘Apology’ and ‘Misunderstood’ situations
specifically. In the other hand, qualitative analysis
conducted based on Brown and Levinson’s
Politeness Theory to identify the function of address
terms in Japanese, Indonesian and Sundanese as
politeness strategy.
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 The Overall Use of Address Terms
Address terms used in all apology situations in
Japanese, Indonesian and Sundanese is as shown on
Table 1. Table 1 shows that in both ‘Apology’ and
‘Misunderstood’ situations, INS used the most of
address terms overall, followed by SNS, and lastly
JNS used the least number of address terms.
Table 1: Overall address terms using in Apology
Situations and Misunderstood Situations by JNS, INS and
SNS
IL NL IF NF Total
JNS
AS 11 6 0 0 17
MS 12 10 0 5 27
INS
AS 202 227 85 94 608
MS 153 166 58 67 444
SNS
AS 134 126 40 36 336
MS 110 109 31 26 276
Table 1 also shows that the situations difference
affected the amount of use of address terms in
Indonesian and Sundanese, but not in Japanese. In
‘Apology situation’, INS used address terms 608
times while in ‘Misunderstood situation’ they used
those 444 times. This tendency also seen on
Sundanese, when SNS used address terms 336 times
CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017 - Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology
Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education
424

in ‘Apology Situation’, and 276 times in
‘Misunderstood Situations’.
From above data, we can see that the necessity to
use address terms is higher on ‘Apology Situation’
when the addresser has heavier responsibility to
mend the unbalance relationship between the
addresser and addressee which caused by
addresser’s fault, than in ‘Misunderstood Situation’
where conversely the mistake is on addressee’s side.
However, this tendency was not seen in Japanese,
where JNS slightly used more address terms in
‘Misunderstood Situations’, than in ‘Apology
Situation’. Still, this tendency could mean that in
Japanese, the role of address terms usage in both
situation is not as crucial as in Indonesian and in
Sundanese, and this showed by the number of
address terms used by JNS relatively. Table 1 also
shows that from social distance factor, three
language’s native speakers used address terms in
larger number when the addressee is non-equal
(IL/NL) than equal (IF/NF). Especially in
Indonesian, it is clear that the use of address terms
also influenced by intimacy/familiarity with the
addressee.
3.2 The Use of ‘Term of Self’ and
‘Address Term’ in Apology
Situations
Table 2: ‘Term of self’ and ‘Address Term’ used in
Apology Situations by JNS, INS and SNS.
IL NL IF NF Total
Term of
Self
JNS
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
INS
123 140 61 69 393
2.12 2.41 1.05 1.17 1.69
SNS
53 54 26 20 153
0.98 1.00 0.48 0.37 0.71
Addres
s Term
JNS
11 6 0 0 17
0.18 0.1 0 0 0.14
INS
79 87 24 25 215
1.36 1.50 0.41 0.43 0.93
SNS
81 72 14 16 183
1.50 1.33 0.26 0.30 0.85
Note: The first row on JNS, INS and SNS represents the number
of address terms used, while the second row represents the
average usage including repetition of address terms in one
utterance.
The specific use of ‘Term of self’ and ‘Address
term’ including its use based on social distance
between the speaker and the hearer is as seen on
table 2. Table 2 shows that based on the type of
address terms used, the three languages show
different tendencies. JNS did not use ‘term of self’ at
all, and only used ‘address terms’. Meanwhile, INS
and SNS used both ‘term of self’ and ‘address
terms’, with larger number on ‘address terms’. INS
used much larger number of ‘term of self’ (393
times), than SNS (153 times). Moreover, INS also
used more ‘address terms’ (215 times) than SNS
(183 times), and lastly followed by JNS (17 times).
From the data above, it can be understood that
compared to the other two languages, Indonesian
prioritized the use of ‘term of self’, where SNS and
JNS prioritized the use of ‘address term’, although in
Japanese the number of its use was not significant.
Table 2 also shows that based on the addressee, JNS
only used ‘address terms’ when the addressee is
non-equal (IL/NL). INS also showed similar
tendency and used both ‘term of self’ and ‘address
term’ more frequently when the addressee is non-
equal and used them in the following sequence:
NL>IL>NF>IF. Meanwhile, SNS tend to use ‘term
of self’ and ‘address term’ differently. SNS used
‘Term of self’ in following order: NL>IL>IF>NF,
while using ‘address term’ in following sequence:
IL>NL>NF>IF, without striking difference in
number.
From above data, it can be examined that in
Japanese and Sundanese language, power distance
(jougekankei) mainly affected the use of address
terms. While in Indonesian, the use of address terms
influenced by both power distance (jougekankei)
with stronger influence, and by intimacy/familiarity
(shinsokankei).
3.3 The Use of ‘Term of Self’ and
‘Address Terms’ in Misunderstood
Situations
After analysing the use of address terms in apology
situation, to examine further about address terms
usage in different situations, the use of address terms
in ‘Misunderstood situations’ will have discussed in
this section. The use of ‘term of self’ and ‘address
term’ by JNS, INS, and SNS in ‘Misunderstood
situation’ is as shown in table 3.
From table 3, it can be seen that the use of ‘term
of self’ and ‘address terms’ in three languages shows
different tendencies. JNS prefer to use both ‘term of
self’ (14 times) and ‘address terms’ (13 times) in
almost the same number, while INS used larger
number of ‘term of self’ (246 times) than ‘address
terms’ (198 times) with significant difference. On
the contrary, SNS used more than twice numbers of
Address Terms in Japanese, Indonesian and Sundanese - As Politeness Strategy in Apology Speech Act
425

‘address term’ (189 times) than ‘term of self’ (87
times).
Table 3: ‘Term of self’ and ‘Address Term’ used in
Misunderstood Situations by JNS, INS and SNS
IL NL IF NF
Tot
al
Term of
Self
JNS
4 5 0 5 14
0.07 0.08 0 0.08 0.08
INS
69 86 38 53 246
1.19 1.48 0.66 0.91 1.06
SNS
25 29 17 16 87
0.46 0.54 0.32 0.30 0.40
Address
Term
JNS
8 5 0 0 13
0.13 0.08 0 0 0.11
INS
84 80 20 14 198
1.45 1.38 0.35 0.24 0.85
SNS
85 80 14 10 189
1.57 1.48 0.26 0.19 0.88
Note: The first row on JNS, INS and SNS represents the number
of address terms used, while the second row represents the
average usage including repetition of address terms in one
utterance.
Table 3 also shows that JNS did not distinguish
the use of ‘term of self’ based on social distance and
used ‘term of self’ similarly to IL, NL and NF.
However, to IF, JNS did not use ‘term of self’ nor
‘address terms’ at all. This tendency could be seen
as evidence that equal-intimate relation in Japanese
language holds special or unique language rules,
which is often different from other social
distance/relations (Abe, 2006; Haristiani, 2010).
Furthermore, JNS used ‘address terms’ only to non-
equal addressee (NL/IL), and none to equal
addressee (NF/IF). Meanwhile, INS showed slightly
different tendency in using address terms in both
‘Apology’ and ‘Misunderstood’ situations. INS used
more ‘term of self’ and ‘address terms’ to non-equal
addressee than to equal addressee. However, the
sequence in using ‘term of self’ is NL>IL>NF>IF,
while in using ‘address terms’ the sequence changed
to IL> NL>NF>IF, with only slight different number
between IL and NL. Similar to INS, SNS used both
‘term of self’ and ‘address terms’ more to non-equal
addressee than to equal addressee, but without
significant difference in number. Even so, SNS used
‘address terms’ to non-equal (IL/NL) and to equal
(IF/NF) with significant difference in number.
From above data, it can be concluded that in all
three languages, power distance (jougekankei)
mainly affected the use of both ‘term of self’ and
‘address terms’. Even more, in Indonesian language,
the use of address terms was clearly influenced also
by intimacy/familiarity (shinsokankei). It is also
examined that situation difference also influenced
the use of ‘term of self’ and ‘address terms’, and
their frequencies.
To examine deeper about the use of address
terms and its function as politeness strategy, in the
next sections ‘term of self’ and ‘address terms’ will
be analyzed by its form and their function as
politeness strategy.
3.4 The Form of ‘Term of Self’ and
‘Address Terms’ and Their
Function as Politeness Strategy
The form of ‘term of self’ and ‘address terms’ used
in Japanese were very simple. Form of ‘term of self’
used in Japanese was only「私 (watashi)」which
means “I” as formal form. This term used only 14
times when the addressee was non-equal (IL/NL)
and non-intimate equal (NF). Since social distance
with the addressees are rather distant, the ‘term of
self’ that used by the addresser was only Watashi.
Moreover, JNS only used one type of ‘Address term’
which is 「先生 (Sensei)」 (30 times), meaning
“Lecturer” or “Teacher”. The use of Watashi and
Sensei are as Example (1) and (2).
Example (1)
(JNS16) 「すみません，私は明日お返しするつもりで
おりました。」
Sumimasen, watashi wa ashita okaeshisuru tsumori de
orimashita.
I’m sorry, I have planned to return it tomorrow.
Example (2)
(JNS51) 「あっ！先生申し訳ありません！忘れていま
した。昨日まで覚えていたのですが…。明日必ず返
しに参ります。」
A! Sensei moushiwake arimasen! Wasurete imashita.
Kinou made oboete itanodesuga…. Ashita kanarazu
kaeshini mairimasu.
Ah! Sir (Lecturer), I’m sorry! I forgot it. But I
remembered until yesterday though… Tomorrow I will
definitely return it (to you).
From example 1, it is shown that the choice of
formal form of Watashi did not stand alone and
supported by honorific ‘Modest form’ (Kenjougo)
such as okaeshisuru (return) and orimasu (be). As
well as example 2, to show higher level of politeness,
address term Sensei used along with ‘Polite form’
(Teineigo) such as -mashita and -desu form, and
with ‘Modest form’ mairimasu (go/come). Address
CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017 - Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology
Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education
426

terms used by JNS shows formality and tend to
function as politeness strategy. However, the
numbers of address terms use in Japanese are
extremely few compared to the other two languages.
From the cultural anthropology point of view,
addressing someone is similar to ‘touch’ that
someone indirectly, and has an aspect conflicting
with basic taboos (Takiura, 2008). In Japanese it is
said that the impact of this taboo is strong, and this
tendency showed in the result of this study. That
JNS tend to avoid or minimize using address terms
to the addressee, which means minimizing ‘touching’
the hearer. For Japanese that prefer to maintain their
negative face (Ikeda, 1993; Jung, 2011),
minimalizing the use of address terms means
respecting the addressee’s negative face, which also
could be understood as negative politeness strategy.
Meanwhile, INS used two types of ‘Term of self’
which are Saya (416 times) and Aku (2 times) when
the addressees are non-equal. Saya is formal form of
a ‘term of self’, and Aku is rather informal than Saya.
This explains why Saya used in enormous number
while Aku in extremely small number. Since with
non-equal addressees the power or social distance
between addressees and addresser are distant, it is
understood that the respondents felt the necessity to
maintain the distance and the formality which shown
by their use of ‘term of self’. This tendency also
shown by their use of ‘address terms’, that they only
used one type of expression to their ‘lecturer’, which
is Bapak/Ibu (often shorten as Pak/Bu) meaning
“Sir/Ma’am”, for 297 times. This Bapak/Ibu is a
pronominal that originally means “Father/Mother”,
but in communication is generally used to address
someone older, or someone respected regardless of
their age.
Example (3)
(INS8) Pak, maaf saya tidak bisa mengembalikan bukunya
tepat waktu. Apa Bapak tidak keberatan saya
mengembalikannya besok? Saya benar-benar minta maaf.
Sir, I’m sorry I cannot return your book as promised due.
Do you mind Sir if I return it tomorrow? I’m really sorry.
As seen on Example (3), INS used Saya to
address himself and used Pak and Bapak to address
the lecturer. It is seen that the choice of these formal
‘term of self’ and ‘address term’ were used by INS
to show his/her respect to the addressee. The
willingness to show respect to the addressee was
also shown by repeatedly using ‘term of self’ and
‘address term’, and this tendency from INS data is
remarkable.
Meanwhile, when the addresser is equal (friend),
INS used 3 types of ‘term of self’ which are Saya
(103 times), Aku (97 times) and others (18 times).
Interestingly, when the addresser is NF, Saya was
mainly used, but when to IF, Aku was mainly used.
It merely shows the social distance between the
addresser and addressee, that when the distance is
closer, addressee tend to use informal form of ‘term
of self’, but when the distance is further, they tend to
use more formal ‘term of self’.
On the other hand, ‘address term’ used when the
addressee is equal are 4 types which are Kamu (you)
(42 times), Teman (friend) (21 times), Addressee’s
name (13 times), Sayang (or Say in short, means
‘Love’) (7 times). The use of first 3 address terms
did not show much difference on IF and NF, when
Sayang which shows intimate relationship only used
for IF. These shows that addressees tend more freely
to choose and use varieties of address terms to the
equals which has closer social distance than to non-
equals. According to Brown and Levinson (1987),
address forms is an in-group identify markers, which
included as positive politeness strategy. Indonesian
has been stated prefer to maintain their positive face
(Takadono, 2000; Haristiani, 2010). This tendency
proven by the data in this study, where INS tend to
use address terms repeatedly in one utterance and
showed enormous number of address terms use also
in many varieties of expressions overall.
In Sundanese, the form of ‘term of self’ used to
non-equal addressee were 3 types, which are
Abdi/Abi (I) (144 times), Addresser’s name (15
times), and Others (2 times). Abdi means “I”, which
has the honorific meaning. Abdi generally used in
formal situations, which has function to express
respect to the addressee. However, Abi has less
formal meaning, although in this study we did not
differentiate the function between Abdi and Abi.
Meanwhile, the ‘address term’ used by SNS to the
non-equal was similar to INS, which was Bapak/Ibu
(318 times). This address terms have similar
meaning and function to those used in Indonesian,
since those words were originally borrowed from
Indonesian.
Example (4)
(SNS1) Punten Bapak, abi teu nyandak bukuna. Tadi teh
abi rusuh jadi weh hilap. Wios teu pami enjing Pak?
Punten pisan.
Sorry Sir I did not bring the book. I was in a hurry and
forgot about it. Is it OK to return it tomorrow? (I’m) really
sorry.
As seen on Example (4), SNS used Abi to
address himself and used Bapak and Pak to address
the lecturer. Similar to INS, SNS choose these
formal ‘term of self’ and ‘address term’ to show his
Address Terms in Japanese, Indonesian and Sundanese - As Politeness Strategy in Apology Speech Act
427

respect to the addressee. The willingness to show
respect to the addressee was also shown by
repeatedly using ‘term of self’ and ‘address term’,
even though the tendency was not as obvious as INS.
For ‘term of self’ to equal addressee, SNS used
mainly 4 types of ‘term of self’ which are Abdi/Abi
(47 times), Urang (17 times), and others (15 times).
Others were such as Kuring, Aing, etc. Meanwhile
the use of ‘address term’ including Name (12 times),
Maneh (7 times), Bro (shortened from ‘brother’) (7
times), Kang (shortened from Akang means
‘brother’) (5 times), Neng/Eneng (means ‘sister’) (5
times), and others (18 times). This tendency is
similar to INS, when SNS tend more freely to
choose and use varieties of address terms to the
equals which has closer social distance than to non-
equals. These use of address terms in Sundanese also
considered as positive politeness strategy, where
SNS prefer to use address terms to maintain
addressee’s positive face with numerous and
varieties in forms of address terms.
4 CONCLUSIONS
This study observed the use of ‘Term of self’ and
‘Address term’ in ‘Apology’ and ‘Misunderstood’
situations in cross cultural context, which are in
Japanese, Indonesian, and Sundanese. The result
showed that Japanese had different tendency in
using address terms, where in Indonesian and
Sundanese the tendency to use address terms were
more similar. The use of address terms in Japanese
and Sundanese mainly influenced by power relation
(Jougekankei), when in Indonesian it is influenced
both by power relation and familiarity/intimacy
(Shinsokankei). From politeness perspective,
Japanese tend to minimalize using address terms as
their effort to maintain addressee’s negative face as
negative politeness strategy, while Indonesian and
Sundanese tend to use address terms to show their
willingness to respect addressee’s positive face and
use address terms as positive politeness strategy as
many as possible, and this tendency seen most
obvious in Indonesian.
REFERENCES
Abe, K., 2006. Shazai no Nicchuu Taishou Kenkyuu
(thesis). Hiroshima University. Unpublished.
Afful, J.B.A., 2010. Address forms among university
students in Ghana: a case of gendered identities?.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 31 (5), pp. 443-456.
Boyckman, S., Usami, Y., 2005. Yuujinkan de no Shazaiji
ni Mochiirareru Goyouron teki Housaku : Nihongo
bogo washa to Chuugokugo bogo washa no hikaku.
Goyouron Kenkyuu, 7, pp 31-44.
Braun, F., 1988. Terms of address: Problems of patterns
and usage in various languages and cultures (Vol. 50).
Walter de Gruyter.
Brown, P., Levinson, S.C., 1987. Politeness: Some
universals in language usage (Vol.4). Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Haristiani, N., 2010. Indonesiago to Nihongo no
Shazaikoudou no Taishoukenkyu – Shazaibamen to
Gokaibamen ni okeru feisu no ijihouryaku ni
chakumokushite (Thesis). Hiroshima University.
Unpublished.
Haristiani, N., 2012. Indonesia go to Nihongo no koshou
no hikaku – Shazai bamen ni mirareru jishoushi-
taishoushi no taiguuteki kinou ni chakumokushite.
Sogogakujutsu gakkaishi, 11, pp. 19-26.
Ikeda, R., 1993. Shazai no taishokenkyuu—Nichibei
taishoukenkyuu—face to iu shiten kara. Nihongogaku,
12, pp.13-21.
Jung, H.A., 2011. Shazaikoudou to Sono Hannou ni
kansuru Nikkan Taishoukenkyuu: Poraitonesu riron no
kanten kara. Gengo Chiiki Bunka Kenkyuu, 17, pp. 95-
112.
Kim, M., 2015. Women’s talk, mothers’ work: Korean
mothers’ address terms, solidarity, and power.
Discourse Studies, 17(5), pp.551-582.
Kusumoto, T., 2010. Nihongo no taiwa tekisuto ni okeru
jishoushi-taishoushi no shudaikinou – Chuugokujin
gakushuusha no nihongo ni yoru shotaimen kaiwa kara
no bunseki. Tokyogaikokugodaigakuronshuu, 81, pp.
155-166.
Lee, H., 1991. Nihongo no ninshoudaimeishi no
shouryaku ni tsuite. Kokubun Kenkyuu, 41, pp. 45-55.
Ohama, R., 2001. Nihongo kyoukasho ni mirareru
jishoushi-taishoushi no shiyou ni tsuite. Kyouikugaku
kenkyuu kiyou, 47(2), pp. 342-352.
Rendle-Short, J., 2009. The address term mate in
Australian English: is it still a masculine term?.
Australian Journal of Linguistics, 29(2), pp.245-268.
Suzuki, T., 1976. Kotoba to bunka (Vol. 858). Iwanami
Shoten.
Taavitsainen, I., Jucker, A.H. eds., 2003. Diachronic
perspectives on address term systems (Vol. 107). John
Benjamins Publishing.
Takiura, M., 2008. Poraitonesu Nyuumon. Tokyo:
Kenkyuusha.
Takadono, Y., 2000. Nihongo to Indonesiago no
Iraihyougen no Hikaku. Ajiakenkyuujo Kiyou, 9, pp.
353-357.
CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017 - Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology
Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education
428