The Language of Reciprocity and Exchange

[M Izabel]

If someone says, "Thank you," and another one responds, "You're welcome," does the response deny, cancel, or balance out a reciprocity or an exchange? Does it mean the one who thanks is welcome again to avail, receive, or ask for favor? Does the one who responds mean what he says or is he culturally conditioned linguistically to say "You're welcome" if he hears someone say "Thank you"? Is the "thank you-and-you're welcome" dialogue, in itself, a reciprocity of acts and an exchange of expressions?

Among Filipinos, when someone says "Salamat" (Thanks), the expected response is "Walang anuman" (No anything). Even though the response sounds negative, it negates nothing. "Utang na loob" (debt of gratitude) stays untouched. It cannot be cancelled or denied by expressions Malinowski (1923) and Jacobson (1960) called pathic. "Pathic expression" in contemporary parlance is "small talk." Only exchange (palitan) can cancel, deny, and balance out reciprocity (gantihan). "Sumbat" (reminding or counting), an insulting act where a benefactor reminds and counts what he has given to a beneficiary, calls for a payment or payback value-for-value. If the beneficiary cannot pay or do the equivalent exchange, he can return what he has received. So, exchanging and returning gifts cancel reciprocity.

Reciprocity in the Philippines has no specific language or expression, since it is an informal, unsaid, and unspecified form of interaction where giving and receiving are involved. If one gives or does someone a gift or a favor, it is expected and understood that the latter should reciprocate to the former whatever and however he wants in the future. Exchange is a different story. "Deal," "quits," "barter," "trade," and "exchange" have entered our lingua franca for exchange, especially in business and gambling. They are used when a value-for-value deal is reached. "Exchange tayo ng number" means "Let's give each other's phone number." "Barter tayo ng sapatos." is "Let's trade your shoes with mine." "Quits na tayo." translates to "We're now okay." or "There's no more between us."

Among male participants, they use "usapang lalake" (gentleman's talk) together with a handshake to mean that they have to stick to what they agree. Exchange also includes blatant negating statements such as "Bayad na ako." (I'm paid off.), "Patas na tayo." (We're now equal or balanced.), and "Wala na akong utang." (I have no more debt.) said after the conclusion of a deal or finalization of an agreement . Such statements are also used when a reciprocity is ended by an exchange. For example, if a friend makes "sumbat" by telling me that he gave me a shirt before, I'll feel insulted and be compelled to buy him a shirt similar to what he gave or return what he gave me if I still haven't used it. I'll then use a negating expression or statement for exchange since our reciprocal relationship is over. Naturally, I will say it with a hint of anger and disappointment.

"Walang anuman," the Tagalog equivalent of "welcome," doesn't have an exact communicated meaning or transferred information. It's said automatically the moment "salamat" (Thank you) is heard. Filipinos are culturally conditioned to say it as a response. "Walang anuman" doesn't mean anything specifically. Some don't even understand what it really means, but they use it. Its literal meaning, "No anything," is vague. Its function is to give voice to an act of recognizing a grateful person who thanks. It completes the social interaction. It's the saying that counts not what's being said. Besides, if one doesn't want to verbally respond, he can resort to gestures by nodding or moving his hands.

Americans, for a small talk that's also a greeting, say, "How's it going?" The natural response is: "Good." Again, they're culturally conditioned to say the usual response although the interrogative greeting is unclear. What is "it"? Is it a person that is good or one of the things he is doing that is going good? "What's up?" and What's new?" are usually answered automatically with "Not much" or "Nothing much." "What's up?" for example, is culture-specific. If translated to Tagalog, it's "Anong nangyari?" a question only nosy people itching for gossips ask. It seems to me vague grateful or greeting expressions are exchanged with vague responses, and an act of thanking or greeting is reciprocated with an act of acknowledging or responding back. Generally, expressions are for exchange and acts are for reciprocity, where a responded act of greeting, for instance, can be a beginning of a long, meaningful relationship, if done right.

[heesun hwang]

I added a post at my blog; Japanese gifts in Korean-Japanese/Japanese-Korean online dictionary. I guess John would give a more organized picture of the whole. And... aren't there many previous researches in Japan or those done by specialists in Japanese gift practice? I find this so interesting, so, seriously, could we launch on a small online project as John suggests? I'm not sure how long and well this will go on but... it's fun. (Just my thoughts.)

[heesun hwang]

Oh, thank you for the advice, John. In fact I've been having a trouble because the word "gift" is more like an abstact category simply defined as "giving something, or given thing"... probably an imported concept in the process of translation. So I can't see virtually any related customs or words when I put the search term in a Korean dictionary. Maybe that's why I'm more interested in theoretical concepts.

In Thesaurus.com;

Definition: something given freely, for no recompense
Synonyms: allowance, alms, award, benefaction, benefit, bequest, bestowal, bonus, boon, bounty, charity, contribution, courtesy, dispensation, donation, endowment, fairing, favor, giveaway, goodie, grant, gratuity, hand, hand-me-down, handout, honorarium, lagniappe, largesse, legacy, libation, oblation, offering, offertory, philanthropy, pittance, premium, present, presentation, provision, ration, relief, remembrance, remittance, reward, souvenir, subscription, subsidy, tip, token, tribute, write-off
Oops... that's quite many. It'll take a fairly long time to compare with Korean expressions.

 

Somehow, in an online Korean dictionary, it reads:

Gift(선물) - giving something, or given thing

Idioms/Examples;

birthday gift(생일선물), gift for celebration(축하선물), a bundle of gift(선물꾸러미)

Related concepts;

Sa-rye(사례, 謝禮) - expression of gratitude in verbal, behavioral, or material ways

Pye-mool(폐물, 幣物) - given thing; but this usually conceptualizes wedding gifts in actual usage

Son-ssit-i(손씻이) - giving something small, or small gift, as an expression of gratitude for the receiver's favor; literally, it is 'hand-washing' - son(hand) + ssit-i(washing off) - so it is more like gift to finish one cycle of transaction.

I definitely need a better dictionary. Three years ago, one voluminous thesaurus was published here, but well, it's farily expensive. I think I need to go to a library.

 

Well, I think this could be a starter though; and M's description looks like a good starting point as well. Let me report more findings later again.

幣物

[John McCreery]

First, a couple of points about the Japanese case.In Japan, gifts of chocolate on Valentine's day are one-way, from women to  men (reversing the pattern in, for example, the USA); the men are supposed to reciprocate on "White Day," an entirely artificial holiday created by department stores taking advantage of the principle that those who receive should later give back. 

Second, the chocolate comes in many forms. The _giri choco_ is typically cheap, industrially made and packaged chocolate candy, on a par with the sort of candy that in the USA is bought in bulk for Halloween treats. Deeper respect or more serious interest are expressed by the gift of more expensive imported or artisanal chocolate. Greater intimacy is expressed by chocolate handmade by the giver (albeit, typically, from kits that supply directions as well as the necessary ingredients.

Returning, however, to the research project I suggested. I would strongly recommend not spending a lot of time on developing a preconceived theory of the gift. One good start with a dictionary or thesaurus, many of which are now available on line. Starting to play with this I note that in my iPhone I have both Chinese and Japanese dictionary apps and entering the English word "gift" in the search field produces a substantial and varied list of terms and phrases on both. In a more serious vein, I can, if I want to spend the time, check those lists against Japanese-Japanese and Chinese-Chinese dictionaries, of which classic equivalents of the OED are now available on line as well as on paper. It seems reasonable to assume that, while quick searches of the sort that are now relatively simple to implement, might not reveal some subtle differences, the broad local categories conventionally glossed "gift" in English should pop up  pretty quickly, making possible comparisons between languages. 

[heesun hwang]

When I read about giri choco, I remembered that there is also 'Paparo Day'(November 11th) in Korea; November 11th is 11/11 and Paparo is a name of a snack, slim and long cookie sticks with dark chocolate icing that look like the figure '1'. Girls and boys give paparo to each other on the day. It's a custom invented by the company (so people often make jokes that they will never be exploited by such marketing strategies). Still, it's interesting that people looks like trying to find out such chances all the time; this is exactly how such marketing strategies can be effective!

And I think there's a similar obligation here as well; I often see someone brings a bag of candies on such days (Valentine's and etc) to the office or to the class in case there's anyone who doesn't receive anything and thus gets hurt. What is more interesting is that the 'someone' who brings such candies often doesn't have a girlfriend or boyfriend.

 

Then, what will the gift (Valentine's Day chocolate) look like if I adopt the categorization by David?

1) Communism; probably between lovers already in mutual commitment; this is not about necessity; but the principle of ability might be in action, because, when the two transactors are in mutual commitment, they won't mind about the (exchange) value of the gift itself; what is important in this case is that they did give something that they are able to give. Suppose there rises a problem; then it's probably from the disappointment of one party - that is, (s)he thinks that his or her partner didn't do the best with his or her ability to respond to the emotional need.

2) Exchange; probably between potential lovers; I guess that the giver will expect that (s)he will get the same counter-gift in return, but this is not about achieving equivalence in terms of utilizability - what is expected to be achieved is rather a relationship of mutual commitment; or, a recognition of his or her value in the "mating market"; (s)he wants to get assured that (s)he is no less attractive than the receiver; so the counter-gift functions as a sort of equivalent.

3) Hierarchy; it can be offered as a hierarchical gift - a boss might give it to the others to express his/her generosity or a sense of humor, or in reverse, might want to receive one. Or, can we include candy-for-all here?

Hmm... not easy to figure out. I think that the relationship between the giver and the receiver shows each case's ideal, and indeed, it's more like a matter of morality on which the relationship is expected to be made. In this sense, I feel that David's argument is persuasive.

 

In fact, what's more to the point is that John's previous comment makes me think about lots of things;

How about starting with these questions? ; Is there an ideal of gift in each language and culture? One way to figure out the ideal, if there's any, might be to figure out when and why exactly things go wrong. Or, are they so embedded in such and such specific contexts that they are not coherent? Then is it to possible to figure out a general feature across the individual gift customs comparable to one another in each culture?

I think it'll be fairly hard to generalize the ideal of gift in Korean culture. There's no umbrella term for gift from the beginning. I have an impression that the word 'gift'(seon-mool) has been heavily influenced by the market ideal - given for free with pure intention of giving itself - or a recent invention, which is not surprising. But at the same time it's hard to list all the categories of gift (gift in the eye of an anthropologist, not of the actors?). My guess is, though, there are principles of action or emotionalities relevant to the three basic categories suggested by David.

And maybe we need a basic working definition of gift; for example, should we include the cases like bribery? Or just anything given, received, and reciprocated with "obligations"? Is it possible to say that there's an obligation to receive in case of bribery?

[John McCreery]

Curious thing, in a taxi tonight I heard a Japanese pop singer cover of

"Last Christmas, I gave you my heart.
The very next day, you gave it away.
This Christmas.....my tears
I'm giving it to someone special."

I was also moved to meditate on the difference between the Imperial gift, the _On_ so infinitely vast that only death could repay it and _giri choco_, "duty chocolate," given as Valentine's Day gifts by Japanese office ladies to male colleagues of whom they are not particularly fond.

In a more serious vein, I am wondering if we should try to get beyond this kind of random reminiscence to a bit of systematic research on the terminology of gifts and gift-giving in Tagalog, Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Greek and English for starters. Would be interesting to know if there are serious categorical differences or, as has turned out in the case of color terms, a global paradigm with identical prototypes and minor variation around the edges.

[M Izabel]

Guest/Ghost

This is interesting. Filipinos have bisita/buwesita, a play of words. Bisita is visitor and buwesita, annoyance.

[Huon Wardle]

I had never thought of it until now I looked at the online dictionary - guest/ghost.

[Keith Hart]

The online etymological dictionary is quite good. The Greek for stranger xenos is similar.

[heesun hwang]

Thank you, Huon. I remember I read it in the Benveniste's and Derrida's books, but now am wondering if there's an updated discussion in anthropology. Is there? Maybe it's me who have to look up. ^_^

And a picture added to the former, just to enjoy; Quinn's blood sculpture. But it seems to me that it is the reverse in a sense; normally 'inalienable' body fluid that forms the value as a piece of 'art' precisely because it is alienated from the body - making art even more sacred, rather than giving a satire. Did I get it right?

[Huon Wardle]

A great deal of modernist art plays with the idea of

'art' as something so valuable it is inalienable - Duchamp's urinal or Manzoni's canned excrement for example