Giving and Receiving Is a Mess! (Verbs of Giving and Receiving)
With the AGERU (あげる・さしあげる・やる) and KURERU verbs (くれる・くださる), the giver is selected to be the subject, and the receiver is marked with the particle に: with the MORAU verbs (もらう・いただく), the receiver is the subject, and the giver is marked with either に or から. The AGERU and KURERU verbs can be translated into English as 'to give', whereas the MORAU verbs as 'to receive'. As you already know, the usage of these verbs is extremely messy. Because it is messy indeed, I can't explain it elegantly. But some of you may find my attempt helpful, so let me continue.
First, I want you to recognize that two mutually independent factors are involved in the selection of a particular verb of giving/receiving: (i) the direction of transfer with respect to the in-group/out-group distinction, and (ii) the relative status of the giver and the receiver. If you violate the rules regarding (i), the sentence will be ungrammatical and thus unacceptable: if you violate the rules regarding (ii), the sentence itself will be acceptable, but your judgment of the relative status of the people involved may be rejected as inappropriate.
Let's look at the diagrams below. You are in the center of the universe. Surrounding you are in-group members, e.g. your family members and close friends. The rest of the universe makes up the out-group.
These diagrams show that:
- AGERU verbs cannot be used for inward transfer.
OK: You --> In-group NG: In-group --> You You --> Out-group Out-group --> You You --> Out-group Out-group --> In-group In-group --> Out-group In-group --> In-group Out-group --> Out-group - KURERU verbs can be used only for inward transfer.
*Within the in-group (which is flexibly defined according to the situation), you may feel someone is closer to you than others. In such a case, you can use KURERU verbs when the receiver is closer to you than the giver is.OK: In-group --> You NG: You --> In-group Out-group --> You You --> Out-group Out-group --> In-group In-group --> Out-group In-group --> In-group* - MORAU verbs cannot be used for outward transfer.
OK: You <-- In-group NG: In-group <-- You You <-- Out-group Out-group <-- You In-group <-- Out-group Out-group <-- In-group In-group <-- In-group Out-group <-- Out-group
I think this much is not so awful. What puts into agony both students and teachers alike is combining these rules with relative status of the giver and the receiver. Relative status is highly conventional; that is, it is socio-culturally determined; that is, you don't have total freedom to decide on it. In every culture, certain people are regarded as higher in status. The criteria may be wealth, occupation, lineage, age, wisdom, body size/shape, color of the hair, or what have you.
Furthermore, there are normally different hierarchies within a single culture, and you have the right not to observe commonly accepted hierarchies. Let me illustrate this point using the status of the emperor of Japan. Some Japanese truly believe that the emperor is divine; others think that he is an indispensable symbol for consolidating the nation; still others think that the emperor system is the root of all social evils. Different people with different beliefs use the verbs of giving/receiving differently. As a linguist, I feel comfortable telling you grammatical rules and principles, but I don't want to, and I cannot anyway, tell you what to believe. What I can tell you is that if your belief system is this or that, then such and such is the/an appropriate way of saying what you want to say.
Next, I have to tell you that your belief system is supposed to be encoded not only in the choice of giving/receiving verbs but also in addressing terms and other expressions. For example, てんのう means 'emperor', and てんのうへいか means 'His Majesty the Emperor'. So, てんのうに手紙をあげた/やった is consistent, but てんのうへいかに手紙をあげた/やった is not. If you use てんのうへいか, you must match the level of respectful expression, e.g. てんのうへいかにお手紙をさしあげた。 Similarly, 先生 is a respectful addressing term, so that 先生に手紙をやった is unacceptable on a purely linguistic basis. Of course, not all people respect their teachers. So, those who do not have to invent a different addressing term, i.e. a pejorative term for a teacher. That is せんこう. せんこうに手紙をやった is linguistically perfect. Some people may tell you that this sentence is not good, but what they think is inappropriate is your attitude, not your language.
I want to talk about やる a little further. It is used when the receiver is inferior. The question, then, is what/who is conventioanally considered inferior. I had a bird (very big, beautiful, and talkative) named とりとりちゃん (とり ='bird': ちゃん is similar to さん as in 山田さん, but is typically used when calling children). I never said, とりとりちゃんにえさをやる (えさをやる = 'to feed (animals, etc.)'. In English you can say, 'I have to feed my family.' As a non-native speaker, I don't know what feeling/connotation is behind this expression. Doesn't this imply that your family is burdensome?) I always said とりとりちゃんにごはんをあげる。 I think it is appropriate to use あげる if you think that the animal/bird/etc. is your family member. Also, I think the selection of a verb depends on the 'animalness' hierarchy: I feel less comfortable to use あげる if the creature is a fish (I once had tropical fish, and I hated them because they eat each other), and I may not want to use あげる if the receiver is a plant, e.g. うえき (plant) にみずをやる/?あげる。
Several years ago, I investigated these verbs of giving/receiving. I considred hypothetical situations in which the giver and receiver are an emperor and an empress, a spindler and a thief, a baby and a thief, Father and Mother, Grandma and a teacher, two teachers, and all other combinations that I could think of. One of my conclusions is that these verbs of giving/receiving are closer to the meaning of 'to donate, to bestow, to make a present of' than 'to give' in English. That is, someone who is well off gives something to an unfortunate one.
Therefore, generally speaking, such verbs are problematic if both the giver and the receiver are higher in status than the speaker. In order to show respect to both of them, the speaker must use double, or even triple, honorific expressions -- which makes the utterance awkward and obsequious. For example, if you are the receiver, there is no problem. You can always pretend to be the unfortunate one. So, ジョンがこれをくれました, ジョンさんがこれをくださいました, 私はジョンにこれをもらいました, 私はジョンさんにこれをいただきました are all grammatical and appropriate. But if both giver and receiver are your teachers whom you respect equally, you have a problem. 山田先生は田中先生に本をさしあげました is definitely out because it implies that 山田先生 is lower than 田中先生. Although textbooks say that あげる is appropriate if giving takes place between equals, many, if not most, native speakers feel uncomfortable to say 山田先生は田中先生に本をあげました because it could imply that the giver is more affluent than the receiver. In such a difficult situation, people usually use less 'colorful' verbs, e.g. 山田先生は田中先生に本をおおくりになりました (おおくりになる: the respectful form of おくる 'to present, to make a present of'). Similarly, I wouldn't say 田中先生は山田先生から本をもらいました, おもらいになりました。Instead, I would say 田中先生は山田先生から本をおうけとりになりました (おうけとりになる: the respectful form of うけとる 'to receive').
How do you feel? Enough is enough? You want to quit learning this language? The late Professor Richard Feynman of Caltech said:
|
... I received a letter from Professor Wheeler which said that there was going to be an international
meeting of theoretical physics in Japan, and might I like to go? Japan had some famous physicists
before the war -- Professor Yukawa, with a Nobel prize, Tomonaga, and Nishina -- but this was the
first sign of Japan coming back to life after the war, and we all thought we ought to go and help them
along ...
After visiting a number of universities I spent some months at the Yukawa Institute in Kyoto. I really enjoyed working there. Everything was so nice: You'd come to work, take your shoes off, and someone would come and serve you tea in the morning when you felt like it. It was very pleasant. While in Tokyo I tried to learn Japanese with a vengeance. I worked much harder at it, and got to a point where I could go around in taxis and do things. I took lessons from a Japanese man every day for an hour. One day he was teaching me the word for "see." "All right," he said. "You want to say, `May I see your garden?' What do you say?" I made up a sentence with the word that I had just learned. "No, no!" he said. "When you say to someone, 'Would you like to see my garden?' you use the first 'see.' But when you want to see someone else's garden, you must use another 'see,' which is more polite." "Would you like to glance at my lousy garden?" is essentially what you're saying in the first case, but when you want to look at the other fella's garden, you have to say something like, "May I observe your gorgeous garden?" So there's two different words you have to use. Then he gave me another one: "You go to a temple, and you want to look at the gardens ..." I made up a sentence, this time with the polite "see." "No, no!" he said. "In the temple, the gardens are much more elegant. So you have to say something that would be equivalent to 'May I hang my eyes on your most exquisite gardens?'" Three or four different words for one idea, because when I'm doing it, it's miserable; when you're doing it, it's elegant. I was learning Japanese mainly for technical things, so I decided to check if this same problem existed among the scientists. At the institute the next day, I said to the guys in the office, "How would I say in Japanese, 'I solve the Dirac Equation'?" They said such-and-so. "Ok. Now I want to say, 'Would you solve the Dirac Equation?' -- how do I say that?" "Well, you have to use a different word for 'solve,'" they say. "Why?" I protested. "When I solve it, I do the same damn thing as when you solve it!" "Well, yes, but it's a different word − it's more polite." I gave up. I decided that wasn't the language for me, and stopped learning Japanese. Feynman, Richard P. 1985. Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! New York: W.W. Norton and Company. |
Well, Professor Feynman, it was unfortunate that we didn't have chance to talk. People respect others 'not because of what they do but because of what they are.' (I read this phrase somewhere. Don't ask me what it means!) I could have told you, 'Your sentences are grammatical but could be considered inappropriate in certain social situations. Don't blame the language, but blame the society!'
Copyright (c) 1996 Yoko Hasegawa. All Rights Reserved.
Updated 5/5/96; Comments to hasegawa@socrates.berkeley.edu
Since 5/5/96