Up to now I’ve spoken about verbal characters from the perspectives of “class,” “status,” “gender,” and “age” (parts 57–72), addressed whether or not just four perspectives are enough (parts 72–82), and then looked at the converse problem of whether or not four perspectives are too many (parts 83–). In regards to this, I first stated that indeed, in some cases four perspectives seem to be too many. Depending on the verbal character, not all four perspectives are required, and some perspectives may not be designated specific values (parts 83, 84, and 85), which would make four perspectives seem to be too many.
For example, in the case of “class,” verbal character variations might not fall into one of the two patterns of “refined” or “vulgar,” but may have three patterns —“refined,” “vulgar,” or “undefined.” Similarly, adding undefined to the variations of “status,” —“highest of the high,” “superior,” “inferior,” and “runt”— increases their number from four to five. “Gender” can be increased to three types (“male,” “female,” and “undefined”), and “age” to five types (“senior citizen,” “elderly,” “youth,” “baby,” and “undefined”). If we calculate all the variations, we have 3 × 5 × 3 × 5, or 225. Even if we subtract one, based on the fact that it is impossible to have a character in which all the perspectives are “undefined” (part 84), we still have 224 verbal characters. This number is due to the fact that we have the product of four numbers (3, 5, 3, 5). That is, we have four perspectives. So, are four too many?
To answer this question, we will collect some of the ideas I’ve written about in a fragmentary way under the name of “linked perspectives.” The four perspectives of “class,” “status,” “gender,” and “age” are separate perspectives, but they frequently link together; i.e., the value of one perspective is often linked to that of another.
Links between perspectives can be strong or weak.
In a strong link, the value of one perspective will determine that of another, such that the number of variations in that perspective is limited to just one. For example we have seen that in “senior citizen” and “baby” characters there is no difference in the language of “males” and “females” (part 68). The value of the age perspective (“senior citizen” or “baby”) defines the value of “gender” (as undefined), so there is a strong link between “age” and “gender.”
In a weak link, the value of one perspective does not determine that of another, but tends to predict it, and in some cases limits the number of variations to a certain range. We can see a weak link between “gender,” “class,” and “status” in the notion/expectation that “men” have higher status than “women,” while “women” have more “class” than men (part 64).
Of course, the difference between “strong” and “weak” is a matter of degree, so for links falling between the two it is hard to judge which it is. Whether certain verbal characters cannot exist —such as a character with a “highest of the high” “status” and “age” of “baby,” or a character whose “class” is “vulgar” even though its “status” is “highest of the high”— or are simply rare, is a difficult question.
