Article published In: Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 6:3 (2015) ► pp.398–420
The Complexity and Variability of Self-Deprecation in Korean Conversation
Published online: 28 September 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.6.3.04kim
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.6.3.04kim
Drawing on a corpus of telephone conversational data, this study examines a collection of self-deprecations in Korean conversations. Detailed analyses of self-deprecations in larger fragments than minimal adjacency pair sequences illustrate the multifaceted nature of self-deprecation. Self-deprecation entails not only deprecatory assessments, but complaint or trouble talk about one’s shortcomings, reenactment of experiences or moments that support the deprecation, and discussion of how to remedy problems. The study further shows that self-deprecation is not a solitary but an interactionally organized practice. The speaker’s repeated self-deprecations elicit a series of different responses from the recipient, such as positive reframing, downgrading the deprecator’s problem, and recommending solutions to the deprecator’s problem. Many instances of self-deprecation suggest that it can be an important resource for building motivation, responsibility, and a sense of affiliation and solidarity with other social members.
References (25)
Boxer, Diana, and Florencia Cortés-Conde. 1997. “From Bonding to Biting: Conversational Joking and Identity Display.” Journal of Pragmatics271: 275–294.
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, Herbert H., and Richard J. Gerrig. 1990. “Quotations as Demonstrations.” Language661: 764–805.
Clift, Rebecca. 2007. “Getting There First: Non-Narrative Reported Speech in Interaction.” InReporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. byElizabeth Holt and Rebecca Clift, 120–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2007. “Assessing and Accounting.” InReporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. byElizabeth Holt and Rebecca Clift, 81–119. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
. 2009. “A Sequential Approach to Affect: The Case of “Disappointment””. InTalk in Interaction: Comparative Dimensions, ed. byMarkku Haakana, Minna Laakso, and Jan Lindström, 94–123. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.
Haugh, Michael. 2010. “Jocular Mockery, (Dis)Affiliation, and Face.” Journal of Pragmatics421: 2106–2119.
Heritage, John, and Anna Lindström. 2012. “Knowledge, Empathy, and Emotion in a Medical Encounter.” InEmotion in Interaction, ed. byAnssi Peräkylä and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 256–273. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holt, Elizabeth. 1996. “Reporting on Talk: The Use of Direct Reported Speech in Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction291: 219–245.
Jefferson, Gail. 1988. “On the Sequential Organization of Troubles-Talk in Ordinary Conversation.” Social Problems351: 418–441.
Kim, Kyu-Hyun, and Suh Kyung-Hee. 1996. “Dealing with Prior Talk: Discourse Connective in Korean Conversation.” Japanese/Korean Linguistics 5, ed. byNoriko Akatsuka, Shoichi Iwasaki, and Susan Strauss, 83–99. Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford University, Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Ko, Eon-Suk, Na-Rae Han, Alexandra Caravan, and George Zipperlen. 2003. Korean Telephone Conversations Speech. Philadelphia, Penna.: Linguistic Data Consortium.
Kupetz, Maxi. 2014. “Empathy Displays as Interactional Achievements: Multimodal and Sequential Aspects.” Journal of Pragmatics611: 4–34.
Norrick, Neal R. 1993. Conversational Joking: Humor in Everyday Talk. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” InStructures of Social Action, ed. byMaxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, Harvey. 1995. Lectures on Conversation (Vols. I and II1), ed. byGail Jefferson, introduction by Emanuel A. Schegloff. Oxford: Blackwell.
Schnurr, Stephanie, and Angela Chan. 2011. “When Laughter Is Not Enough: Responding to Teasing and Self-Denigrating Humour at Work.” Journal of Pragmatics431: 20–35.
Speer, Susan. 2012. “The Interactional Organization of Self-Praise: Epistemics, Preference Organization, and Implications for Identity Research.” Social Psychology Quarterly751: 52–79.
Stivers, Tanya. 2008. “Stance, Alignment, and Affiliation during Storytelling.” Research on Language and Social Interaction411: 31–57.
Vásquez, Camilla, and Alfredo Urzúa. 2009. “Reported Speech and Reported Mental State in Mentoring Meetings: Exploring Novice Teacher Identities.” Research on Language and Social Interaction421: 1–19.
Cited by (11)
Cited by 11 other publications
Voutilainen, Liisa & Sanna Vehvilainen
Mu, Junfang, Lixin Zhang & Yuyang Chen
2024. An investigation of the formation and pragmatic strategies of “xx-zi”. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 34:4 ► pp. 565 ff.
Ro, Eunseok & Josephine Mijin Lee
SturtzSreetharan, Cindi, Monet Ghorbani, Alexandra Brewis & Amber Wutich
Kim, Mary Shin & Eun Young Bae
Agostini, Gina, Cindi SturtzSreetharan, Amber Wutich, Deborah Williams, Alexandra Brewis & Zhiqiang Cai
Page, Ruth
2019. Self-denigration and the mixed messages of ‘ugly’ selfies in Instagram. Internet Pragmatics 2:2 ► pp. 173 ff.
Speer, Susan A.
SturtzSreetharan, Cindi L., Gina Agostini, Alexandra A. Brewis & Amber Wutich
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. 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.
