Cover not available
Article published In:
Sex, Death & Politics: Taboos in Language
Edited by Melanie Keller, Philipp Striedl, Daniel Biro, Johanna Holzer and Benjamin Weber
[Pragmatics & Cognition 28:1] 2021
► pp. 25–56

Tongan honorifics and their underlying concepts of mana and tapu

A verbal taboo in its emic sense

 | University of Mainz
The Tongan language has honorific registers, called a ‘language of respect’ (Churchward 1953). These are two limited sets of lexemes used to refer to people of chiefly and kingly rank and thus honour the societal stratification. Anthropological-linguistic research reveals that these honorifics are a tapu-motivated linguistic practice. The Polynesian concept of tapu (source of the loanword taboo) means that entities with more mana (‘supernatural power’) such as persons of higher rank and their personal belongings are ‘sacred’, and it is ‘forbidden’ to get in physical touch with them. The respectful terminology (hou‘eiki and tu‘i) is restricted to such tapu entities (signifiers), and its generic character shows that direct verbal contact with the common kakai signifier is avoided. Thus, the honorific registers function as a verbal taboo in its emic sense.
Keywords: anthropological linguistics, honorifics, culture and cognition, semantics, pragmatics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The cultural context
    • 2.1Stratification in Tongan society
    • 2.2The meaning of mana and tapu
    • 2.3Practices of physical avoidance in Tonga
  • 3.Honorifics
  • 4.Honorific registers in Tongan language
    • 4.1Semantics of the vocabulary of respect
    • 4.2The use of the respectful registers
  • 5.Speech preludes
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.00020.vol
References (49)
References
Agha, Asif. 2007. Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra & Anne Storch. 2019. Creativity in language: Secret codes, special styles and linguistic taboo. International Journal of Language and Culture 6 (1). 1–9.Google Scholar
Allan, Keith. 2018. Taboo words and language: An overview. In Keith Allan (ed.), The Oxford handbook of taboo words and language, 1–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allan, Keith & Kate Burridge. 2006. Forbidden words: Taboo and the censoring of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Shawn & Terry Hunt. 2005. Sāmoa’s pre-contact connections in Western Polynesia and beyond. Journal of the Polynesian Society 114(3). 227–266.Google Scholar
Beaglehole, John (ed.). 1967. The journals of Captain James Cook on his voyages of discovery, vol. III, part 1: The voyage of the resolution and discover, 1776–1780. Woodbridge: Boydell Press.Google Scholar
Besnier, Niko. 1992. Polynesian languages. In William Bright (ed.), International encyclopedia of linguistics, vol. 31, 245–251. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bott, Elisabeth. 1981. Power and rank in the Kingdom of Tonga. Journal of the Polynesian Society 90(1). 7–81.Google Scholar
Brandes, Stanley. 2018. An anthropological approach to taboo words and language. In Keith Allan (ed.), The Oxford handbook of taboo words and language, 372–390. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Ian. 1992. Island kingdom: Tonga ancient and modern. Christchurch: Canterbury University Press.Google Scholar
Churchward, Clerk. 1953. Tongan grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1959. Dictionary Tongan – English, English – Tongan. Nuku‘alofa: Government of Tonga Printing Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Linguistic politeness axes: Speaker-addressee, speaker-reference, speaker-bystander. Pragmatic microfiche, 1.71, A3–B1.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1980. The languages of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Douaire-Marsaudon, Françoise. 1997. Nourriture et richesses. Les objets cérémoniels comme signe d’identité à Tonga et à Wallis. In Serge Tcherkézoff & Françoise Douaire-Marsaudon (eds.), Le Pacific-Sud aujourd’hui: Identités et transformations culturelles, 261–287. Paris: CNRS Editions.Google Scholar
Fleming, Luke & Michael Lempert. 2011. The unmentionable: Verbal taboo and the moral life of language. Anthropological Quarterly 84(1). 5–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fleming, Luke. 2015. Taxonomy and taboo. The (meta)pragmatic sources of semantic abstraction in avoidance registers. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 25(1). 43–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foley, William. 1997. Anthropological linguistics: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fox, James. 2005. Ritual languages, special registers and speech decorum in Austronesian languages. In Alexander Adelaar & Nikolaus Himmelmann (eds.), The Austronesian languages of South East Asia and Madagascar, 87–109. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gifford, Edward. 1929. Tongan society. Honolulu: Bernice Bishop Museum.Google Scholar
Greschat, Hans-Jürgen. 1980. Mana and tapu: Die Religion der Maori auf Neuseeland. Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar
Haugen, Jason & Susan Philips. 2010. Tongan chiefly language: The formation of an honorific speech register. Language in Society 39(5). 589–616. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haviland, John. 1978. Guugu-Yimidhirr brother-in-law language. Language in Society 81. 365–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keating, Elizabeth. 1997. Honorific possession: Power and language in Pohnpei, Micronesia. Language in Society 261. 247–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Power sharing: Language, rank, gender, and social space in Pohnpei, Micronesia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Keating, Elizabeth & Alessandro Duranti. 2006. Honorific resources for the construction of hierarchy in Samoan and Pohnpeian. Journal of the Polynesian Society 115(2). 145–172.Google Scholar
Krupa, Victor. 1982. The Polynesian languages: A guide. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lynch, John. 1998. Pacific languages: An introduction. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mills, Andy. 2016. Bodies permeable and divine: Tapu, mana and the embodiment of hegemony in pre-Christian Tongan. In Matt Tomlinson & Ty Kāwika Tengan (eds.), New mana: Transformations of a classic concept in Pacific languages and cultures, 77–105. Canberra: ANU Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milner, G. B. 1961. The Samoan vocabulary of respect. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 911. 296–317.Google Scholar
Philips, Susan. 1991. Tongan speech levels: Practice and talk about practice in the cultural construction of social hierarchy. In Robert Blust (ed.), Currents in Pacific linguistics. Papers on Austronesian languages and ethnolinguistics in honour of George W. Grace (Pacific Linguistics C 117), 369–382. Canberra: ANU Press.Google Scholar
. 2010. Semantic and interactional indirectness in Tongan lexical honorification. Journal of Pragmatics 42(2). 317–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. How Tongans make sense of the (non-)use of lexical honorifics. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 21(2). 247–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pizarro Pedraza, Andrea. 2018. Introduction. In Andrea Pizarro Pedraza (ed.), Linguistic taboo revisited, 1–12. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schulze, Wolfgang. 2019. Circumnavigating taboos: A functional and formal typology. [URL] (18 Nov, 2020.)
Sharifian, Farzad. 2011. Cultural conceptualisations and language. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shore, Bradd. 1989. Mana and tapu. In Alan Howard & Robert Borofsky (eds.), Developments in Polynesian Ethnology, 137–173. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Shumway, Eric. 1971. Intensive course in Tongan. Laie: Institute for Polynesian Studies.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1979. Language structure and linguistic ideology. In Paul Clyne, William Hanks & Carol Hofbauer (eds.), The elements. A parasession on linguistic units and levels, 193–247. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
. 1981. The limits of awareness. Austin, TX: Southwestern Educational Laboratory.Google Scholar
Simons, Gary. 1982. Word taboo and comparative Austronesian linguistics. In Amran Halim, Lois Carrington & S. A. Wurm (eds.), Accent on variety, 157–226. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Storch, Anne. 2018. Typology of secret languages and linguistic taboos. In Alexandra Aikhenvald & R. Dixon (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic typology, 287–321. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taliai, ‘Opeti. 1989. Social differentiation of language levels. MA thesis, University of Auckland.
Van der Grijp, Paul. 2005. Development Polynesian style: Contemporary Futunan social economy and its cultural features. Journal of the Polynesian Society 114(4). 311–338.Google Scholar
. 2017. Word classes and the scope of lexical flexibility in Tongan. Studies in Language 41(2). 445–495. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wood-Ellem, Elisabeth. 1999. Queen Sālote of Tonga. The story of an era 1900–1965. Auckland: Auckland University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Cahyono, Bambang Eko Hari, Endang Sri Maruti & Muhammad Hanif
2024. The honorific system in oral texts of historical site guardians in Madiun (Indonesia): a pragmasociostylistic perspective. Cogent Arts & Humanities 11:1 DOI logo
Völkel, Svenja
2023. Named entities, naming practices, and their meanings – linguistic types and cultural contexts. International Journal of Language and Culture 10:2 ► pp. 151 ff. DOI logo
Keller, Melanie, Philipp Striedl, Daniel Biro, Johanna Holzer & Kate Burridge
2021. Circumnavigating taboos. Pragmatics & Cognition 28:1 ► pp. 5 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.