IMPOLITENESS, IDENTITY AND POWER IN KOREAN: CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AND PERCEPTION STUDY OF IMPOLITENESS by KEUNYOUNG LEE A DISSERTATION Presented to the Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy March 2020 DISSERTATION APPROVAL PAGE Student: Keunyoung Lee Title: Impoliteness, Identity and Power in Korean: Critical Discourse Analysis and Perception Study of Impoliteness This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in the Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures by: Lucien Brown Chairperson Kaori Idemaru Core Member Zhuo Jing-Schmidt Core Member Julie Sykes Institutional Representative and Kate Mondloch Interim Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Graduate School. Degree awarded March 2020 ii © 2020 Keunyoung Lee iii DISSERTATION ABSTRACT Keunyoung Lee Doctor of Philosophy Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures March 2020 Title: Impoliteness, Identity and Power in Korean: Critical Discourse Analysis and Perception Study of Impoliteness The current dissertation aims to further our understanding of the impoliteness phenomenon in language by investigating how impoliteness is connected to the construction of identity and the exercise of power in on-going interaction. To achieve the research goal, the study closely examines naturally occurring polylogal discourse from two different institutional settings in the context of Korean: the TV talk show (television entertainment discourse) and the National Assembly’s hearing (political discourse). Following the notion of relational work proposed by Locher and Watts (2005) and the bottom-up approach (i.e. impoliteness 1 or first order impoliteness) which focuses on participants’ judgements of discourse in interaction, the study argues that impoliteness is inextricably linked to participants’ co-constructions of identity as an interactional resource causing conflicts and as a linguistic index showing where co-participants identities are negotiated. The study also argues that impoliteness plays a significant role in the exercise of power in political discourse by illustrating that the successful use of impoliteness causing offense is strategically used to restrict the action environment of one’s interlocutor. The findings of the study suggests that the judgements of impoliteness are related to the institutional norms and expectations but also highly context-dependent. iv The study also expands the discussion of impoliteness to L2 learners’ perception of impoliteness in the target language by examining how L2 proficiency and cross-cultural variations affect learner’s perception of impoliteness. It is observed that there is L2 proficiency effect when the context has limited visual and prosodic features that learners can rely on for their judgements. The study identifies that Korean honorifics is one of the major causes which lead the novice learners to misjudge impolite utterances as polite because they could not understand the sarcastic use of honorifics which appear as polite on surface but convey offensive and insincere messages. The results of the study suggest that interpreting humor, jokes and sarcasm/irony is a quite difficult pragmatic task for the novice L2 learners. v CURRICULUM VITAE NAME OF AUTHOR: Keunyoung Lee GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED: University of Oregon, Eugene Inha University, Inchon DEGREES AWARDED: Doctor of Philosophy, Korean Linguistics, 2020, University of Oregon Master of Arts, Language Teaching Specialization, 2012, University of Oregon Bachelor of Science, Chemical Science and Biological Engineering, 2000, Inha University AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST: Korean Linguistics Teaching Korean as a Foreign Language PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Graduate Teaching Fellow, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, 2012-2020 GRANTS, AWARDS, AND HONORS: Graduate Teaching Fellow, EALL, University of Oregon, 2012-2020 Poster Winner, Graduate Student Research Forum, University of Oregon, 2016 Graduate Student Travel Awards, American Association of Teachers of Korean, 2017 PUBLICATIONS: Brown, L., Iwasaki, N., & Lee, K. (2015). Implementing multiliteracies in the Korean classroom through visual media. In Multiliteracies in world language education (pp. 176-199). Routledge. vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My deepest gratitude goes first and foremost to my academic advisor, Professor Lucien Brown. He helped me develop and sharpen my view of critical discourse analysis with countless feedback and suggestions. This dissertation could not have been completed without his guidance, support, encouragement and inspiration throughout my studies in the doctoral program. I am also indebted to Professor Kaori Idemaru for not only her academic training and guidance but also her constant encouragement and support. I would like to thank her for always listening to me and giving me insightful advice. I would also like to thank my committee members, Professor Zhuo Jing-Schmidt and Professor Julie Sykes, for their careful reading, for giving me many essential comments and suggestions for improvement, and for providing me with helpful criticism and advice. I would like to thank the department of East Asian Languages and Literatures at the University of Oregon for guiding me through the many years of this doctoral program and providing me financial support and teaching experience. Especially, my gratitude goes to my fellow graduate students and the Korean language instructors at UO. I would like to thank Eunyoung Lee who is an amazing language teacher and also my best friend for her support and help during my doctoral studies. Lastly, but certainly not least, I would like to thank my family: my mom and dad, my sisters, my mother-in-law and father-in-law and my brothers-in-law for their unconditional support, love and prayers. Especially I would like to thank my husband Brandon Beck for believing in me when I had trouble believing in myself and for always standing by me throughout this long journey. vii To my mom and dad for your love and support viii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRDUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Objectives of the Study .................................................................................... 1 1.2 Relevant Frameworks to the Current Study ..................................................... 3 1.2.1 Discursive Approach to Impoliteness ..................................................... 4 1.2.2 Relational Work ...................................................................................... 5 1.2.3 Multimodal Approach to Discourse Analysis ......................................... 9 1.2.4 Cross-cultural Difference and L2 Proficiency on Pragmatic Competence ............................................................................................ 10 1.3 Data ............................................................................................................ 12 1.4 Transcription .................................................................................................... 13 1.5 Organization of the Current Study ................................................................... 14 II. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................... 16 2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 16 2.2 Defining Impoliteness ...................................................................................... 17 2.3 Identity and Impoliteness ................................................................................. 19 2.4 Social Indexicality and Identity ....................................................................... 22 2.5 Power and Impoliteness ................................................................................... 24 2.6 Multimodality of Impoliteness ......................................................................... 27 2.6.1 Prosody and Impoliteness ....................................................................... 27 2.6.2 Gesture and Impoliteness ........................................................................ 29 2.7 L2 Learner’s Perception of Impoliteness ......................................................... 30 2.8 Korean Honorifics and Impoliteness ............................................................... 33 2.8.1 Honorifics in Korean ............................................................................... 33 2.8.2 Sarcastic Honorifics Use for Impoliteness .............................................. 36 III. STUDY 1: IMPOLITENESS AND IDENTITY ............................................... 39 3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 39 ix Chapter Page 3.2 Data and Methodology ..................................................................................... 42 3.2.1 Contextualizing Interview Data .............................................................. 42 3.2.2 Data ......................................................................................................... 43 3.2.3 Methodology ........................................................................................... 44 3.3 Analysis and Discussion .................................................................................. 46 3.3.1 Gura and K-pop Idol Jiyoung ................................................................. 46 3.3.2 Gura and Singer Dong-uk ....................................................................... 52 3.3.3 Gura and Opera Singer Sumi .................................................................. 61 3.4 General Discussion .......................................................................................... 67 3.5 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 70 IV. STUDY 2: IMPOLITENESS AND POWER .................................................... 72 4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 72 4.2 Data with its Background................................................................................. 74 4.2.1 The Cheonan Sinking ............................................................................. 75 4.2.2 The Minister of National Defense, TK ................................................... 75 4.2.3 The Physical Set-up of the Hearing ........................................................ 76 4.3 Analysis and Discussion .................................................................................. 78 4.3.1 Interruption and Power ........................................................................... 78 4.3.2 Expressing Disinterest and Power .......................................................... 84 4.3.3 Sarcastic Comments and Power .............................................................. 90 4.4 General Discussion .......................................................................................... 97 4.5 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 99 V. STUDY 3: L2 KOREAN LEARNER’S PERCEPTION OF IMPOLITENESS IN PUBLIC POLYLOGAL DISCOURSE ............................... 100 5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 100 5.2 Methodology .................................................................................................... 101 5.3 Results .............................................................................................................. 104 x Chapter Page 5.3.1 Quantitative Responses ........................................................................... 104 5.3.2 Qualitative Responses ............................................................................. 111 5.4 Discussion ........................................................................................................ 118 5.5 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 125 VI. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 126 6.1 Summary of Findings ....................................................................................... 126 6.2 Implications of the Study ................................................................................. 130 6.3 Suggestions for Future Research ..................................................................... 131 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................ 134 A. YALE ROMANIZATION SYSTEM ............................................................... 134 B. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE KOREAN GLOSS .................. 136 C. SCRIPTS OF VIDEO CLIPS USED IN STUDY 3 .......................................... 138 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................. 144 xi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Relational work (Watts, 2005) .............................................................................. 6 3.1 Four hosts of the TV talk show ‘Radio Star’ ......................................................... 43 3.2 Guests of the episode #343 .................................................................................... 44 3.3 Guests of the episode #344 .................................................................................... 44 3.4 Examples of aykyo by K-pop idols ........................................................................ 46 3.5 Gura is yelling at Jiyoung in panmal (left) and Jiyoung bursts crying (left). ........ 50 3.6 Gura is pointing at Dong-uk with his chin and index finger when he insults Dong-uk with sarcastic comments. ........................................................................ 57 3.7 Dong-uk is embarrassed-smiling and rubbing his left eyebrow. ........................... 57 3.8 Dong-uk is speaking to Gura with a serious face. ................................................. 58 3.9 Gura is pointing at Dong-uk with an outstretched hand and his palm is open-facing upward. .............................................................................................. 60 3.10 Sumi is looking away and smiling when Jio is bragging about his chest hair. Another guest Dong-uk is looking at Jio. ............................................................. 63 3.11 Sumi is scratching her head and avoids eye contact with Gura. ......................... 64 3.12 Sumi is asking help to Dong-uk for how to answer Gura’s question. ................ 65 3.13 Sumi gives embarrassed and shy smile with touching her hair. ......................... 65 3.14 Gura is laughing out loud after seeing Sumi’s reactions. ................................... 65 4.1 TK is meeting the outraged families of missing sailors on March 28th, 2010. ...... 76 4.2 TK is bowing his head to the public in apology of the military’s poor and inept handling of the Cheonan sinking on April 16th, 2010. ........................................... 76 xii Figure Page 4.3 The seating for the National Assembly’s hearing ................................................. 77 4.4 The hall for the National Assembly’s hearing ...................................................... 77 4.5 TK is reacting to NA1’s second interruption. ........................................................ 82 4.6 TK is interrupting NA1’s speaking. ....................................................................... 83 4.7 NA1 is looking at TK when he gives ‘whatever’ utterance. .................................. 88 4.8 NA1 is looking at the chairman sitting across from TK. ....................................... 89 4.9 The news headlines criticizing TK’s arrogant and insincere attitude. ................... 89 4.10 TK is listening to NA3’s argument about the 0.81 % probability. ...................... 93 4.11 TK is saying ‘what an excellent judgement’ to NA4. .......................................... 96 5.1 An example of the survey ...................................................................................... 104 5.2 The degree of im/politeness for Gura’s behaviors in the TV talk show ‘Radio Star’ (video clip 1~7) ................................................................................. 107 5.3 The degree of im/politeness for TK’s behaviors at the National Assembly hearing (video clip 8~14) ....................................................................................... 108 5.4 The novice and advanced learners’ mean score difference from the native speakers’ mean scores. ........................................................................................... 109 xiii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 5.1 Mean scores and standard deviations (SD) for video clips .................................... 105 5.2 Individual participants’ ratings for the video clips 8, 11, 12, 13, and 14 .............. 110 5.3 The frequency of verbal and non-verbal features mentioned by participants ........ 111 5.4 Participants’ narrative responses about prosodic features of Gura ........................ 113 5.5 The Screenshots from ‘Radio Star’ and the National Assembly’s hearing ........... 119 xiv CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 Objectives of the study It is needless to say that our daily life is full of conflictive interactions. Impoliteness exists in almost all kinds of human communication and pervades every aspect of life wherever human (linguistic) interactions take place. Impoliteness, however, has been often dealt as a marginal or subordinate linguistic behavior of social interaction (Leech, 1983) and been significantly ignored in research while remarkable progress has been achieved with an immense amount of research for politeness since the politeness theory and the face model by Brown and Levinson (1987). Despite an enormous imbalance between the amount of research in politeness and impoliteness, interest in the linguistic impoliteness phenomena has steadily increased and there were noteworthy and meaningful studies focusing on impoliteness over the last quarter century. Most recently, Culpeper (1996, 2005), Culpeper, Bousfield and Wichmann (2003), Locher and Watts (2005), Spencer-Oatey (2002, 2004) and Mills (2005) established impoliteness frameworks and proposed definitions of impoliteness with addressing impoliteness as a central linguistic behavior which plays a critical role in diverse interactions. Based on their frameworks and definitions of impoliteness, many studies have now explored the impoliteness phenomena with empirical data collected from various contexts. However, there is still an enormous gap to be filled in the study of impoliteness. The impoliteness phenomena needs to be observed and examined in more various types of discourse in a more elaborate and refined way with ample empirical details. To understand the conflict nature of impoliteness, the context where impoliteness occurs needs to be observed in multiple dimensions with various social aspects, and the two important social variables that are difficult to separate from impoliteness are identity and power. These two social variables, identity and power, are intrinsically, theoretically, and all the more empirically related to the impoliteness phenomena. The current study tries to unravel and understand these complexities of impoliteness by tying 1 it to these two social variables, identity and power, and takes Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as the main tool to analyze language data. CDA is one of the qualitative methodologies used to analyze written or spoken language. This approach pays more attention to social context of texts than the linguistic features of the texts. CDA views discourse as a form of social practice and aims to explain how such practices represent social relationships, social identities and powers in historical, cultural and institutional context. (See Fairclough and Wodak 1997; Fairclough 1992, 2001, 2013). Therefore, CDA is highly context-sensitive, participant-oriented and, therefore methodologically opposite to addressing more fundamental questions such as those the current study tries to explore: how the impoliteness phenomenon is discursively shaped and represents the social identities and powers of participants in context. Because of those characteristics, CDA has been used in a number of studies of identity and power (e.g. van Dijk, 1991; Tannen 1994, 1995; Wodak 1996; Mumby and Clair, 1997; West, Lazar and Kramarae, 1997; Alvesson, 1998; Cameron, 1998; Pickering, 2001). To examine impoliteness related to the social variables, identity and power, two different institutional genres of discourse were carefully chosen in the context of Korean. One is a TV talk show (entertainment discourse) and the other is interviews from the National Assembly’s hearing (political discourse). The TV talk show was originally produced to entertain late-night TV adult viewers and involves humorous comedy elements to elicit laughter from the viewer. The discourse from the TV talk show is extremely informal, casual, colloquial and less polite. On the contrary, the discourse from the National Assembly’s hearing is between the high-level Korean government officer and the members of the Korean National Assembly on serious political issues. It is more formal, ritualized, bureaucratic and polite than the TV talk show. However, impoliteness is one of the main features found in both discourses and understanding what impoliteness does in these two very different types of discourse and how the dialogue is developed with it helps us understand the conflict nature of impoliteness more in depth. Not many studies attempt to explore the topic of impoliteness through this kind of comparative discourse analysis with a pragmatic perspective. The ultimate aim of the current study is to investigate the linguistic impoliteness phenomenon related to identity construction and power negotiation between interactants 2 in discursive social practice. To achieve the aim, the current dissertation consists of three empirical studies: two critical discourse analyses (Study 1 and Study 2) and one perception study of L2 Korean learners (Study 3). The research objectives are as follows: 1. Study 1 will examine how identities are constructed, negotiated and achieved in interactions in the TV talk show where the show host explicitly shows his extremely impolite attitudes and rude personas towards the guests and what kinds of roles impoliteness plays for identity construction in interaction. 2. Study 2 will observe how linguistic impolite behaviors are closely related to the power negotiation and power exercise in the political discourse from the National Assembly’s hearing which involves interactions between the Minister of National Defense and the members of the National Assembly. 3. Lastly, Study 3 will investigate L2 Korean learner’s perception of impoliteness in two different Korean contexts: the TV talk show and the National Assembly’s hearing (from Study 1 and Study 2). Many studies in second language acquisition emphasize developing the L2 learners’ ability to use appropriate language but often neglect the importance of pragmatic awareness and competence. The study seeks to identify the impact of cross-cultural difference and L2 proficiency on the perceptions of impoliteness by comparing the native speakers and non-native speakers, and also between the novice and advanced learners. 1.2 Relevant frameworks to the current study There are various perspectives and different theoretical stances towards impoliteness phenomena. Even though there is no overt agreement on what impoliteness is among researchers other than as one-dimensional negative concept: face-threatening acts or behaviors, most researchers would agree that we need more elaborate definitions with more sophisticated and empirical approaches to examine impoliteness phenomena. One of most distinctive and noticeable perspectives in recent decades towards impoliteness phenomena is that context is crucial (Locher and Bousfield, 2008). In other 3 words, judgements with respect to norms and appropriateness are highly context- sensitive, especially when we consider the judgements by interactants themselves who share expectations in a particular social practice. Impoliteness researchers , therefore, started focusing on various discourse types: various genres or institutional discourse practices (e.g. Culpeper, 2005; Bousfield, 2007; Archer, 2005; Lorenzo-Dus et al., 2013; Culpeper and Holmes, 2013; Dobs and Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, 2013). The current study also tried to examine the impoliteness phenomena as judgements by participants within specific genre-specific and institutional contexts where they negotiate their relationships. The participants in this paper mean not only the speaker who performs the face aggravating behavior but also the hearer (i.e. the target of impoliteness) and the viewers by the nature of the genre-specific and institutional data (the TV talk show and the hearings of the National Assembly) used for the current study. To understand and interpret the linguistic impoliteness phenomenon of social actors (the speaker, the hearer and the viewers) in a specific context with the variables of identity and power, the current study employs the following three analytical frameworks: the discursive approach, relational work and multimodal approach. 1.2.1 Discursive approach to impoliteness The discursive approach has played a role as framework in some degree in many recent studies of impoliteness for researchers who pursue more qualitative, context-based, local and participant-centered analytic approach. This approach was initially shaped from the widely-shared criticism on Brown and Levinson’s (1987) concept of politeness which sees politeness as the strategic mitigation of face threats, ignores the hearer’s perspective and fails to take into account the complexity of the social nature where politeness takes place. Locher and Watts emphasized the discursive nature of the construction of im/politeness as follows: …politeness cannot just be equated with mitigation of face threatening act because politeness is a discursive concept. This means that what is polite (or impolite) should not be predicted by analysts. Instead, researchers should focus on the discursive struggle in which interactants engage (Locher and Watts, 2005:9). 4 By extension, many discursive theorists criticize using speaker-centered, sentence-focused, and decontextualized utterances as data because they believe that meaning is dynamically constructed and negotiated by participants over longer stretches of discourse. Scholars taking discursive approach also criticize the traditional narrow views on impoliteness as well such as a marginal linguistic behavior (Leech, 1983), a failure of communication (Culpeper, 1996) or an absence of politeness (Eelen, 2001). Finally, discursive approach takes a negative stance about traditional analyst-centered notion that the theorist decides and judges whether some behavior is regarded as polite or impolite. Discursive researchers emphasize the importance of interactants’ judgements and argue that meaning is constructed by local participants through interactions (i.e. discursive turns). In this regard, discursive approach is my starting point for designing my analysis of impoliteness. Instead of simply taking theorists’ analytical models, the current study focuses on interactions and its local participants’ perception and judgement for more localized and contextualized interpretation and tries to capture the complexity of social context where meaning is negotiated. 1.2.2 Relational work The current study employs the notion of relational work – the discursive approach to im/politeness - proposed in Locher and Watts (2005), Watts (2005) and Locher (2006) as the theoretical framework. Relational work means the work that people invest in negotiating their relationships in communication (Locher, 2004; Locher and Watts, 2005) and language in this approach is not only an essential means that people use to communicate but also a crucial tool to shape their social identities and relationships vis- a`-vis their interactional partners (Locher 2006). Relational work shares its core idea and is used quite similarly in literature with the term facework. The theoretical underlying concept of face in relational work is based on the notion of face proposed by Goffman (1967); “the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact” (p. 5) and “it is only on loan to him from society” (p.10). Face is seen as a concept that is discursively negotiated and highly depends on situations and the 5 addressees. However, Locher (2006) and Locher and Watts (2005) criticize that the term facework has been too much used only for the situations dealing with the mitigation of face threatening acts in dichotomous –either polite or impolite- perspective since Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) seminal work. They claim that Brown and Levinson’s work fails to explain “those situations in which face-threat mitigation is not a priority, e.g. aggressive, abusive or rude behavior” (Locher and Watts 2005:10) and also “does not leave open the option for a type of relational work that is neither polite nor impolite” (Locher 2006: 255). Relational work is a concept that is always entailed in communication and covers the entire spectrum of behavior “from direct, impolite, rude or aggressive interaction through to polite interaction” (Locher & Watts, 2005: 11). Therefore, the concept of impoliteness and politeness needs to be understood as parts in the entire continuum rather than as the traditional dichotomous concepts simply seeing impoliteness as being non- polite. The following diagram Figure 1 shows the spectral perspective of relational work on the concept of impoliteness and politeness. Figure 1. Relational work (Watts, 2005) In relational work as seen in Figure 1, it is an important issue whether behavior is marked or not: if the behavior is inappropriate, it will be marked (i.e. noticed or salient). Relational work also includes the type of unmarked behavior which is neither polite nor 6 impolite and it is called politic behavior (Watts, 2003). The politic behavior is perceived as appropriate because it entails politeness. However, it is not marked because it is usually an expected behavior as a social norm between lay persons. On the contrary, politeness is a positively marked (i.e. salient) behavior because it is perceived as more than what is normally expected. The next example shows the difference between the politic behavior and polite behavior. Politic behavior A: Would you like some more coffee? B: Yes, please. Polite behavior A: Would you like some more coffee? B: Yes please. That’s very kind. Coffee would be wonderful. (Watts, 2003: 186) As shown in the example, unmarked behavior is equal to politic behavior which is socially appropriate therefore not salient and politeness is positively marked behavior which is toward the positive end of the spectrum. Any behavior that is inappropriate (i.e. impolite or over-polite that the lower half represents) will be negatively marked and more noticed in situation. The dotted lines means the negotiable boundaries of assessments of relational work in different norms of appropriateness in different cultures, societies and events (Locher, 2006). The relational approach stresses that the judgement of impoliteness needs to be understood and interpreted as judgement by participants (i.e. interactants themselves during an ongoing interaction in particular social situation) and those judgements may differ from context to context. It is because judgements of impoliteness is closely related to norm and appropriateness shared by the members in a certain social practice but the norms and expectations also constantly change and are renegotiated by participants. Therefore, the judgements made by the social actors themselves and the context dependence/sensitivity are two core concepts in relational approach. Because of these reasons, studies following the notion of relational work take the bottom is called bottom-up or first-order approach compared to top-down or second-order (theoretical) approach. My approach based on this belief is therefore clearly distinguished 7 from those studies pursuing the top-down/ second-order/theoretical approaches (e.g. Brown and Levinson 1987; Culpeper 1996, 2005; Culpeper, Bousfield and Wichmann, 2003; Archer, 2008) discussing and categorizing impolite linguistic strategies more theoretically rather than the judgements by participants. Therefore, in the current study, I discuss how interactants perceive their communicative behaviors and how they negotiate their relationships in a certain situation and do not focus on naming or categorizing a singular, individual impolite behavior or strategy theoretically. Because of these reasons, the analyses of impoliteness in the current dissertation, which follows the notion of relational work, use the bottom-up approach (i.e. first order impoliteness). It means that relationships are considered to be constructed and emerge dynamically through interaction in situated contexts and impoliteness in the analyses is not conclusively defined with respect to specific linguistic forms or devices. Also it is not predicted or categorized out of contexts in a theoretical way (e.g. Brown and Levinson 1987; Culpeper 1996, 2005; Culpeper, Bousfield and Wichmann, 2003; Archer, 2008). Thus, the current study focuses on how interactants perceive their communicative behaviors, how they react towards them, and eventually how they negotiate their relationships in situated contexts. Also unlike judgements on impolite behaviors by researchers observed after an interaction has ended (i.e. top-down approach or second- order/theory-based approach), the current study pays close attention to not only the verbal comments (i.e. linguistic elements such as honorifics, speech styles, lexemes etc.) made by participants but also to multimodal signals such as facial and body expressions to find interpretable evidence as much as possible to assess participants’ immediate reactions in interaction. It is because the evaluative expressions for inappropriate behaviors such as impolite, rude, aggressive or offensive are rarely produced by participants during the course of an interaction (Locher and Watts, 2005). However, as pointed out by several scholars in the field of im/politeness research (Terkourafi, 2004; Bousfield, 2010; Kádár and Haugh, 2013; Culpeper and Haugh, 2014), a study on im/politeness cannot be a pure first-order approach. Even though the major focus of the current study is still on how participants in interaction judge their behaviors (i.e. lay person’s understanding of im/politeness) and impoliteness in a situated context, it 8 is eventually a researcher’s interpretation and evaluation when the participants’ judgements and reactions are analyzed. Kádár and Haugh (2013) argue the point as: We’re not in the same position as the participants themselves in evaluating particular situated behaviour as polite, impolite and so on. We as analysts thus need to distinguish our own evaluations of politeness (which follow from forming our own understandings of an interaction), and those of the participants themselves, a point which has been emphasised in the second-wave distinction between firstorder and second-order understandings of politeness. (Kádár and Haugh, 2013:7) One thing that researchers both from first-order approach and second-order approach strongly agree on is the importance of the context for judgements of impoliteness and the current study focuses on the context in which participants’ relationships are dynamically negotiated and the participants’ perspectives on them. 1.2.3 Multimodal approach to discourse analysis Several disciplines in linguistics such as pragmatics, conversational analysis, discourse analysis, and critical discourse analysis have started to study language as a social communicative discursive practice rather than an abstract system (Leeds-Hurwitz, 1987). They are interested in actual use of language in communicative setting in specific social contexts. In this perspective inspired by those studies of language in social interaction, language is viewed to create coherent meaning with various resources such as body gesture, facial expressions, gaze, body postures and movements, and sound (i.e. prosody) (O’Halloran, 2011; Kress, 2013; Mondada, 2016). The integrative nature of human’s creating meaning with verbal and non-verbal resources are described as the following: …producing talk involves visible breathing and articulating movements not only of the face and the mouth, but of the entire body; moreover, these articulatory 9 movements are indissociable from other bodily conduct. Under this view, no aspect of language escapes a multimodal perspective. (Mondada, 2016:340) Especially expressing human emotions involves various non-verbal means including physically sensible body movements. One of the defining characteristics of impoliteness from politeness is that impoliteness causes strong emotional reactions among participants in situation. Blitvich (2010) and Kienpointner (2008) argue that unlike politeness, impoliteness associates true emotions. Various emotions are related to impoliteness such as anger, embarrassment, shame and hurt. Because of this particular characteristic of impoliteness, the current study employs a multimodal approach (i.e. modalities) to complement and support the arguments about the impoliteness phenomena in discussion. There are several studies stressing the importance of observing non-verbal expressions and taking them into account for analyzing emotional signals. According to Gallagher and Schuntich (1981) and Izard (1990), facial expressions and gestures such as raised/lowered eyebrows, wide-opened/rolling eyes, winking, nodding or smiling give crucial emotional information. DeSilva et al (1997) also argues the emotional anger is better identified with visual features such as various facial expressions. Busso et al. (2004) points that multimodal information conveys valuable information to detect accurate emotion especially when the semantic information from utterance is ambiguous. Therefore, several non-verbal modalities will be discussed as supporting evidences for the arguments of the current study. 1.2.4 Cross-cultural difference and L2 proficiency on pragmatic competence Recent research in second language acquisition (SLA) has shifted its attention from the accurate use of grammatical forms to actual communication in social interaction since Hymes (1971) introduced the notion of communicative competence which means L2 learner’s ability to use a language for daily interactions with sociocultural knowledge in context. Then, more recent studies (Leech, 1983; Thomas, 1984; Bachman, 1990; Kasper, 1992; Siegal, 1996; Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei, 1998; Ellis, 1999; Ohta, 2005; Rose and Kasper, 2001; Eisenchlas, 2011; Kecskés, 2012) in interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) emphasized the importance of pragmatic competence which is intimately related to 10 one’s ability to use appropriate language that is functioning in a given situation (i.e. speech acts such as requests, refusals and apologies). The pragmatic failure which occurs when pragmatic knowledge and strategies are inappropriately transferred from the L1 to the L2 (Thomas, 1983) has been recognized as more important errors than linguistic errors that can lead L2 learners to the serious trouble. Related to pragmatic competence, there are two important long-time controversial beliefs that have been widely accepted but have not had enough supporting empirical evidence. They are the impact of the cross-cultural difference and the L2 proficiency in pragmatic competence. First, the cross-cultural and cross-language variation in the L2 has been studied as one of major factors affecting L2 pragmatic competence. A growing body of cross-cultural research has revealed that speakers from different cultural backgrounds have different perception of what constitutes appropriateness. For example, there are a number of cross-cultural comparative studies which have examined the L1 pragmatic transfer on L2 pragmatic production across various languages and ethnic groups (e.g. Takahashi and DuFon, 1989; Byon, 2004; Chang, 2009; Hashemian, 2012) and, still scarce, but also on pragmatic perception (Takahashi, 1996; Chang, 2008; Culpeper et al., 2010). They have suggested that there are universally applicable pragmatic rules and knowledge across languages, but, at the same time, that there are also cross-culture differences. The issue seems still controversial and needs more empirical examinations. Another factor that the current study focuses on is L2 proficiency on pragmatic competence. This is another controversial issue because some researchers (e.g. Beebe and Takahashi, 1989; Blum-Kulka, 1982; Olshtain and Cohen, 1989) argue that L2 learners with high proficiency transfer their L1 pragmatic strategies and knowledge to L2 more than the learners with low L2 proficiency, while some other researchers (e.g. Maeshiba et al., 1996) say that higher proficiency L2 learners are less likely to transfer L1 pragmatic strategies to L2 than lower proficiency L2 learners. The current dissertation (Study 3) has been designed to investigate the effect of cross-cultural variations and L2 proficiency on L2 learners’ perception on impoliteness with empirical evidence. The study examines a possible difference between the native speakers and the non-native speakers, and also between the novice learners and the advanced learners on the perception of impoliteness in the target language. 11 1.3 Data As mentioned before, the current dissertation consists of three studies: two critical discourse analyses (Study 1 and Study 2) and one perception study of L2 Korean learners (Study 3). It is important to note that all three studies use unscripted specific institutional and genre contexts in the real world for examining the linguistic impoliteness phenomena in Korean contexts and learners’ perception of it. Using discourse data from the real world is one of crucial differences from other traditional studies using lab-created or scripted linguistic samples that are artificially produced considering a hypothetical- typical model person in our imagination. Sacks (1984) stresses the danger of using non- authentic data as unexpected and counterintuitive things may actually happen or, on the contrary, what is reasonably supposed to happen may not appear in the real world. Since the current study focuses on impoliteness as the judgement and negotiation by the actual participants in interactions, using authentic data is indispensable for achieving the objectives of the study. For the two social variables: identity and power, which will be mainly discussed along with the impoliteness phenomena in Study 1 and Study 2, the two different specific contexts were carefully chosen as data: the TV talk show for entertainment discourse and the hearings for the National Assembly for political discourse. Both of the two genres share the characteristic that they involve two levels of relationship: the interaction between the interviewer and the interviewee and the relationship between those and the audience, and they are both public performances of impoliteness. This kind of polylogal discourse data (i.e. discourse that involves participants in interaction and the public audience) enables impoliteness studies to go beyond the ordinary face-to-face conversation (i.e. dyadic interaction) that most traditional impoliteness models are based on and helps us understand the impoliteness phenomena often occurred in institutional interactions which are usually associated with certain sets of norms (Blitvich, 2010). The data for Study 1 (Chapter 3) consists of interactions between the comedian host Gura and various celebrity guests taken from the TV talk show ‘Radio Star’ which aired in 2013. The data for Study 2 (Chapter 4) are interactions between the Minister of National Defense and the members of the National Assembly from the hearings held in 2010 for the sinking of a South Korea Navy ship which killed 43 Navy soldiers. All 12 discourse data was extracted from the video-recorded interactions. All data sets from the two different contexts contain linguistically aggressive behaviors damaging the face of interactants but the functions and purposes of the impolite behaviors are quite different and complicated depending on the nature of contexts. The present study closely investigates impoliteness strategies as human linguistic behavior and their functions in the real-world contexts along with the social variables, identity and power. For Study 3 (Chapter 5) which examines North American L2 Korean learners perception of Korean impoliteness, a total of 16 video clips were extracted as stimuli from the same original data used for Study 1 and Study 2: eight video clips from the TV talk show ‘Radio Star’ for rating the show host Gura and eight video clips from the National Assembly’s hearing for rating the Minster of National Defense Taeyoung Kim in the degree of impoliteness. A more complete and detailed description about data will be provided in each chapter with its social and historical background. 1.4 Transcription All Korean examples in the current study were transcribed in the Yale Romanization System1 except for proper names of persons or places and presented in three-line transcripts: the original text Romanized according to the Yale system in the first line, morpheme-by morpheme glosses2 in the second line and English translation in the third line. The English translation has been marked in bold font for better legibility. Each Romanized Korean transcription is also followed by its Korean transcription for Korean native readers. Parentheses (round brackets) are used to insert my own words into the English translation to clarify a confusing or omitted reference or to maintain the grammar of the sentence in context3. The transcription example is presented in Example 1. 1 See Appendix A for the table of the Yale Romanization System. 2 See Appendix B for the list of abbreviations used in the Korean morpheme-by-morpheme gloss. 3 The Korean language is considered a highly-context-situation-oriented language. Therefore, contextually understood or situationally obvious elements, which are usually pronouns referring to the speaker and the hearer or even any major sentential element, are often left unexpressed unless focused or delimited (Sohn, 2001). 13 Example 1. The three-line transcription example 1 A: ecey cip-eyse mwe ha-si-esse-yo? yesterday house-LOC what do-HON-PST-POL ‘What did (you) do yesterday at home?’ 2 B: kunyang TV pwa-sse-yo. just TV see-PST-POL ‘(I) just watched TV.’ ==================================================== 1 A: 어제 집에서 뭐 하셨어요? 2 B: 그냥 TV 봤어요. Conventions used for a detailed transcription such as a pause, overlaps, and inhaling/exhaling breaths, are excluded from the transcription for the study. 1.5 Organization of the current study The present dissertation consists of five main chapters and the structure of the chapters has been planned as follows: Chapter 1 provides an overview of the research with the research objectives and the relevant frameworks. The data adopted for the study and its transcription convention are also explained in Chapter 1. After the introduction in Chapter 1, Chapter 2 provides a critical review of the literature on the impoliteness phenomena with an emphasis on the social variables, identity and power, which are closely related to impoliteness. Also the previous literature on L2 learner’s perception of impoliteness is reviewed. Chapters 3, 4 and 5 provide analysis of the impoliteness phenomena with focusing on each different social variable: impoliteness and identity construction for Chapter 3, impoliteness and the exercise of power for Chapter 4, and L2 learners’ perception of impoliteness for Chapter 5. They are presented in separate chapters but coherently related for the current study’s ultimate research question: how the meaning of impoliteness is constructed through discourse in social context, how the local participants negotiate identity and power by using the impolite behaviors as discursive strategy and finally how L2 learners perceive those localized and contextualized 14 situations where the impoliteness phenomena appears. Lastly, Chapter 6 summarizes the major findings and implications of the study. 15 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction This chapter presents an overview of how previous studies have defined and analyzed the impoliteness phenomenon. As noted in Chapter 1, it has only been about two decades since impoliteness studies became an independent field of academic research. Despite the immense imbalance in the amount of research conducted between impoliteness and politeness, the academic interest on impoliteness has rapidly expanded in the last ten years (see Culpeper, 2005; Locher and Bousfield, 2008; Dynel, 2015). It is undeniable that impoliteness is closely linked to politeness research since it started as a by-product or simply an opposite concept of politeness. Therefore, it shares big portion of theories, methodologies, and even researchers with politeness studies. However, thanks to the large amounts of trial and error from previous studies on politeness over the past half century, the impoliteness studies have made meaningful progress in relatively short period of time. Even though there is no solid agreement on what impoliteness is (Lakoff, 2005; Locher and Bousfield, 2008), the impoliteness phenomenon has been tested and discussed by various theories and methodologies to enhance our understanding of impoliteness. This chapter will review the literature on impoliteness with meaningful arguments and findings which are closely related to the current dissertation. The organization of the chapter is as follows: First, Section 2.2 reviews definitions of impoliteness from various notions and approaches in previous literature. Section 2.3 discusses studies on how the impoliteness phenomenon is connected to identity construction. Section 2.4 then looks at the literature on impoliteness issues related to the exercise of power, and Section 2.5 discusses previous studies on non-verbal features such as prosody and gesture related to impoliteness. In Section 2.6, I review previous studies on L2 learner’s perception of impoliteness and the development of interlanguage pragmatic competence. Finally, Section 2.7 introduces Korean honorifics and reviews the sarcastic use of honorifics in literature. 16 2.2 Defining impoliteness Many of the early definitions of impoliteness were inspired by Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory and their face model (1987) which proposes ‘face’ as a universal concept that “every member wants to claim for himself” (1987: 61) and defines politeness as facework that a member invests to mitigate or avoid face-threatening acts. As shown in Brown and Levinson’s claim, “politeness has to be communicated, and the absence of communicated politeness may, ceteris paribus, be taken as the absence of a polite attitude” (1987: 5), their theory is exclusively centering on politeness phenomenon and impoliteness is simply understood as a counter concept of politeness (i.e. impoliteness is equivalent to non-politeness) or used as a term to explain politeness phenomenon more effectively. This dichotomous approach which labels behaviors simply polite and impolite has influenced traditional politeness research work and impoliteness has been treated for many decades as a secondary, marginal product of social interaction or as failed/absent politeness. Leech (1983: 105), for example, claims that “conflictive illocutions tend, thankfully, to be rather marginal to human linguistic behavior in normal circumstances”. Culpeper (1996: 355) notes that impoliteness is acknowledged through “the absence of politeness work where it would be expected” (1996: 357). Impoliteness is also interpreted as a failure of performing the socially desirable norm (Beebe, 1995) or a violation of politeness norm (Lakoff, 1989). The classical view on impoliteness based on Brown and Levinson’s theory has been criticized in several aspects. First, the dichotomous or biased views on impoliteness have caused concerns. Kienpointner (1997) argues that impolite behavior should be seen as less exceptional than most politeness theorists see it. Eelen (2001) strongly criticizes Brown and Levinson’s notion treating impoliteness as the absence of politeness and argues that impoliteness needs to be analyzed in its own terms separately from politeness. Locher and Bousfield (2008) also point the inadequate account of dynamic interpersonal communication in Brown and Levinson’s model and address that conflictive interaction also plays a central role in communication. Culpeper, Bousfield and Wichmann (2003) and Dynel (2015) also state that conflictive talk plays a central role in many types of discourse such as military training discourse (Culpeper, 1996; Bousfield, 2007), courtroom (Lakoff, 1989) and legal discourse (Archer, 2008; Harris, 2001), classroom 17 discourse (Dobs and Blitvich, 2013), and political broadcast (Harris, 2001; Lorenzo-Dus, 2007; Blitvich, 2009). Secondly, many researchers have also drawn attention to the fact that the classical approach overlooks the social aspect of face which is discursively constructed and negotiated within situated interaction with others. Matsumoto (1988), for example, criticizes that the traditional politeness theory over-emphasizes only the individual’s freedom and autonomy (i.e. face as individual psychological desire) and ignores the social aspects of face. Mills (2003) argues that impoliteness needs to be viewed as an assessment or interpretation of someone’s behavior in context rather than an inherent or intrinsic quality in utterance. Mills also points out the importance of the hearer (or the target)’s role in co-construction of impoliteness in interaction because a certain behavior can be judged as impolite in one context but as polite in another depending on how the hearer judges or interprets the utterance. Culpeper (2008) also criticizes that Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory fails “to articulate an adequate conception of context, despite the key importance of context in judgements of politeness (2008: 19). During the last two decades, the concepts of impoliteness have been extensively discussed, tested, revised and developed especially in more interactional, relational and empirical approaches. One of key issues that has raised hot arguments among scholars is if the speaker’s intentions plays a significant role in defining impoliteness. Bousfield (2008) argues that impoliteness involves face-threatening acts that are purposefully performed. Culpeper (2008) also defines impoliteness as communicative behavior that intends to cause target’s face loss or perceived by the target to be intended. However, since “intentions often cannot be ‘proved’” (Zajdman, 1995: 333) because the hearer does not have actual access to the speaker’s real intent, Locher and Bousfield (2008) and Haugh (2010) point out that a speaker’s behavior can be still evaluated either as impolite or polite whether the target perceives the speaker’s intention or not and even could be perceived as unintended. Dynel (2015) also raises the ambiguity of intention by giving examples such as the case when the hearer holds a default subconscious belief about the speaker’s intention or the case the speaker denies an intention claimed by the hearer. Dynel, then, emphasizes the co-constructed nature of impoliteness by interactants both “on the reception and production ends” (2015: 333). 18 Another perspective that newly emerges in recent impoliteness research is that impoliteness needs to be evaluated by the participants themselves in interaction (Impoliteness 1) rather than by researchers in theoretical levels (Impoliteness 2). In this bottom-up approach to the impoliteness phenomenon, impoliteness is a negatively evaluated behavior that breaches a social norm (Locher, 2004; Locher & Watts, 2008) and can be defined more diversely than in a simple dichotomous way such as “the absence of politeness” (Culpeper, 1996:337). It is based on the idea that communicative behaviors always entail facework or relational work. In this notion, therefore, impoliteness is one of the relational aspects in communication, which needs to be focused as seriously as politeness. Scholars in this approach focus on the discursive nature of impoliteness which discursively emerges in context (i.e. not inherent in particular forms of language) and is also co-constructed by participants in interaction. The impoliteness phenomenon is viewed as a discursive struggle and negotiation between participants in social practice. Because of this discursiveness, many of studies (e.g. Culpeper, 2005; Bousfield, 2008; Locher & Watts, 2008; Donaghue, 2018) choose discourse analysis as a method to investigate the impoliteness phenomenon especially in the bottom-up approach (Impoliteness 1), and the current dissertation also examines impoliteness that emerges in discourse by taking the notion of bottom-up approach (Impoliteness 1). 2.3 Identity and impoliteness It is a quite recent trend that scholars start to look into the impoliteness phenomenon by connecting it to identity construction in interpersonal communication. Even though there is great similarity between the key concept face in im/politeness studies and identity as both are about self-presentation and self-conception, the two concepts have rarely been discussed or applied together in previous studies (Spencer- Oatey, 2007). However, under the influence of a postmodern perspective, recent approaches to language have renewed and re-evaluated its crucial and versatile roles in interpersonal relationship in social practice in various terms such as facework (Brown and Levinson, 1987), relational work (Locher, 2004; Locher and Watts, 2005), rapport management (Spencer-Oatey, 2005), and identity work (Bucholtz and Hall, 2005). Along with these recent approaches to the use of language in social interaction, the concept of 19 face and identity have also been revised and re-conceptualized and it has led various attempts in linguistic research to combine im/politeness studies with research on identity construction. First, our understanding of identity has gone through important revisions in recent decades from the traditional view seeing identity as a pre-fixed individual’s inner psyche to a relational and socio-cultural phenomenon that discursively emerges in linguistic interaction (Bucholtz and Hall, 2005; Locher; 2006). In this post-modern perspective, the performative nature of identity (Butler, 1990) has risen as a central character of identity, which means that identity is actively constructed, negotiated and performed through language in social interaction with others rather than staying as an individual’s fixed psychological mind (Varghese et al., 2005; Bucholtz and Hall, 2005; Donaghue, 2008). Especially the postmodern approach to identity, which claims that identity is a linguistic and discursive phenomenon (Weedon, 1987; Kroskrity, 1999; Mendoza-Denton; 2002; Bucholtz and Hall, 2005; Benwell and Stokoe, 2006), has attributed to an increase of linguistic research on identity in recent years. A number of scholars have shown empirical evidence for such a discursive perspective on identity through discourse analysis. Koehn (2005), for example, shows how multiple identities of international students are constructed through discourse by themselves. Haugh (2008) also demonstrates an interviewer’s contribution to the construction of an interviewee’s identity as the student interviewee’s identities are discursively co-constructed and negotiated through interaction with an interviewer. Avdi (2005) examines the clinical discourse around psychiatric diagnosis within a therapy session and shows how the patient’s identities are discursively constructed and negotiated in the clinical conversations. Research on the concept of face has also rapidly grown in recent years. The concept of face which originated in Chinese (Bargiela-Chiappini, 2003) has been much discussed about especially after Goffman’s (1972) seminal essay ‘On face-work’ and noticeably popularized after Brown and Levinson’s (1987 [1978]) politeness theory. Most traditional politeness studies followed Brown and Levinson’s (1978) conceptualization of face which is more focused as a pre-fixed individual cognitive sense of self (Bargiela-Chiappini, 2003) and also generally limited to individual’s positive self- 20 images that s/he wants others to acknowledge. In this perspective, facework is only defined as the work that individuals invest to mitigate or avoid face-threatening acts, which is limited to polite behaviors. Locher and Watts (2005) criticize that facework as traditionally considered only covers a small part of individual’s relationships with others and emphasize that Brown and Levinson’s model fails to take account of the socially attributed aspect of self as a person in relationships to others, which is the social side of face that Goffman (1972) focused. Locher and Watts (2005) argue that our understanding of face should include both of two aspects: an individual as self and social, and propose relational work which comprises the full spectrum of verbal behaviors invested by individuals in social practice, encompassing not only appropriate behaviors as polite but also neutral (nether polite nor impolite) and inappropriate behaviors such as impolite, rude, aggressive and insulting. Sifianou (2011) also criticizes that Brown and Levinson’s face is defined by focusing on single acts rather than longer chunks of discourse. O’Driscoll (2011) and Sifianou (2011) emphasize face as discursively co-constructed in interaction and argue that there is always negotiation of face in social interaction and facework is the discursive elaboration of the interactants’ faces. This discursive approach to the concept of face is a strong trend that emerged in recent years. These re-evaluations of face and identity in recent research, which emphasize their similar nature as discursive, interpersonal, sociocultural and relational, have triggered attempts to combine research on identity construction more generally with the linguistic literature. It is a quite strong trend to combine im/politeness research with research on identity construction and to explore the links between them. However, much less has been written and researched specifically on impoliteness combined with identity construction than on politeness. There are only limited empirical studies that have explicitly investigated the interrelationship between those two concepts in the literature. The notable studies on this topic are Blitvich (2009), Locher (2011), Blitvich, Bou- Franch and Lorenzo-Dus (2013), Dobs (2014), and Donaghue (2018). These studies examined various discourse types to find meaningful connections between impoliteness and identity construction. First, Blitvich (2009) examined media discourse from the American TV news interviews and showed that impoliteness is inextricably linked to identity co-construction of the show host and the guests. In his study, the hosts used 21 impoliteness towards their guests to claim their confrontational identity and differentiated themselves from the traditional TV hosts who take a neutral position in the TV news interviews. Blitvich, Bou-Franch and Lorenzo-Dus (2013) also focused on media discourse. They analyzed discourse of Simon Cowell who is a famous and notorious producer and judge of the TV audition shows and demonstrated how his local identities as an authoritative judge and an expert emerge in interactions with candidates by impolite behaviors. Locher (2011) studied computer-mediated discourse between advice-seekers and advisors from the internet forum which provides technical computer support. This study showed both-parties participants in interactions use impolite comments towards each other to claim desired identities or reject unwanted assigned identities. Dobs (2014) investigated classroom discourse and found that students use impoliteness such mockery, scornful and aggressive comments as strategy to reject or claim identities. Donaghue (2018) demonstrated how identities are negotiated and co-constructed between English teachers and their supervisors in discourse from the post observation feedback meeting in school. Mullany (2008) showed the close relationship between impoliteness and identity construction by showing that the woman managers in a UK manufacturing company use impoliteness strategies to claim their powerful identities towards their male colleagues. The current dissertation (Chapter 3: Study 1) extends this discussion about how impolite behaviors are connected to identity construction to the context of the Korean TV talk show which has not been discussed enough in the literature. By examining discourse from the Korean television talk show genre, this study adds meaningful layers of empirical analysis and evidence on previous research. The current dissertation shows how Korean speakers/participants use impoliteness to negotiate and construct their identities in on-going interaction and discuss various discursive functions of impolite behaviors in the specific genre: TV talk show. 2.4 Social indexicality and identity An index is a linguistic form that is dependent on the interactional context for its meaning such as English pronouns I or he (Silverstein, 1976). Indexicality is a concept that particular sorts of linguistic forms produced by a speaker in interaction represent various kinds of information about social contexts (Ochs, 1989; Silverstein, 1976). There 22 are multiple dimensions of social contexts which may be signaled by the use of linguistic forms. The macro-level variables of social context involve information of social categories such as ethnicity, region, age, gender and group membership. There are also micro-level variables (i.e. interactional variables) such as speaker’s stances, characteristics, personas, emotional tone and the degree of proximity to or distance from an addressee (Morford, 1997). Linguistic forms acquire their semiotic power in interaction through indexical association with those social meanings. Therefore, researchers who take an indexical approach to linguistic forms need to pay close attention to the details of multi-dimensional interactional context because that is where linguistic forms acquire social meaning (Silverstein, 2003). Identity is crucial part of social context that is indexed through linguistic forms. According to Ochs (1992), the indexical relationship between linguistic forms and speaker’s identity is achieved indirectly. At the first stage, linguistic forms immediately and directly index interactional stances of a speaker such as affective (e.g. attitude, feelings and mood of speaker towards some proposition), epistemic (e.g. beliefs or knowledge about some proposition) and evaluative stances. Then, at the second stage, the same linguistic forms come to be connected to particular social types, groups, personas and identities believed to take such stances. The multi-dimensional indexicality is an important mechanism in which linguistic forms are used to construct identity (Bucholtz and Hall, 2005). There are many studies that illustrate how interactional identities emerge in discourse through indexicality. Kiesling (2004) focused on a specific linguistic term and showed how a linguistic form indexes multiple social meanings by analyzing the patterns of use for the term dude. Kiesling argues that the English term dude directly indexes a stance of cool solidarity which is valuable for young men and this stance is indirectly linked to masculinity and the group of male speakers. Along with a specific linguistic term, identity is also indexed by language switching. Besnier (2001) examined how language switching indexes identity in interaction in Tonga. In the interaction between a Tonga seller and a customer, the seller switches language from Tonga to English when she wants to display her identity as modern and cosmopolitan. This study also 23 demonstrates how a social phenomenon such as globalization affects individual’s language use in daily life. There are also studies that examine L2 learners’ perception of certain linguistic forms and the identities indexed by the forms in target language and how they accept or avoid using it in their L2. Siegal (1996) showed that Western L2 female learners learning Japanese in Japan tend to avoid using Japanese female language because they perceive it as indexing overly feminine identity. Similar to Siegal, Brown (2013b) also examined how North American L2-Korean female learners perceive the Korean address term oppa ‘older brother of a woman’ which potentially indexes negative feminine identities such as manipulative, submissive and overly cute. In his study, Western L2 female learners perceive multiple identities indexed by the term oppa and selectively and strategically use the term depending on the context in which they judge the term ‘oppa’ may index a positive identity such as affection. The current dissertation (Study 1) discusses how the speaker’s stances in interaction are indexed by various pronouns and expressions and demonstrates how the speaker’s identities discursively emerge in interaction. 2.5 Power and impoliteness Power has been defined in several ways in traditional politeness studies. In politeness studies, power is defined ‘asymmetric’ (Brown and Levinson, 1987) or ‘relative’ (Brown and Gilman, 1972) social ability to control someone else. Also connecting Brown and Levinson’s face, power is one of the three most important subjective values with D (distance) and R (ranking of imposition) that social actors consider and it is used to calculate the weightiness of a face-threatening act. However, Brown and Levinson’s (1987) power variable is soon criticized by several studies (e.g. Spencer-Oatey, 1996; Turner, 2003). Those studies indicate the problem that Brown and Levinson’s power variable neglects the complexity of actual contextual interactions and never successfully demonstrates how power affects the interactions with empirical evidence. Even though there were a number of subsequent studies (e.g. Holtgraves and Yang, 1992; Hong, 1996) that have attempted to provide empirical evidence supporting power as a reliable predictor of politeness, the majority of traditional politeness studies 24 based on Brown and Levinson’s theory still heavily focused on interpersonal relationships (i.e. the individual speaker’s strategies). Lakoff (1989), along with those critiques, addresses that traditional politeness theories should be examined in various discourse types especially associated with institutional contexts that have a ‘built-in’ asymmetric institutional hierarchy. Similar to Lakoff’s proposal, Fairclough (2001) also differentiates ‘power in discourse’ (i.e. the exercise of power in on-going interaction through language) from ‘power behind discourse’ which indicate the built-in social hierarchy in power relations. Locher (2004: 39) also argues that “Power cannot be explained without contextualization”. A number of studies, then, have examined the relationship between politeness and power in various institutional discourse types such as political discourse (Chilton, 1990; Perez de Ayala, 2001; Harris, 2001), medical discourse (Aronsson and Rundstrom, 1989; Spiers, 1998) and courtroom discourse (Penman, 1990). Power also seems to be inextricably linked with impoliteness. Even with its tenuous amount of papers compared to ones in politeness research, researchers in impoliteness studies have made meaningful progress in research on impoliteness and power. First, as Locher and Bousfield (2008) state, there seems to be a fair amount of agreement that there is no interaction without power, and also that impoliteness is an exercise of power. A number of impoliteness studies focused on the socially built-in asymmetric power in certain institutional discourse. For example, in army training discourse(Mills, 2002) and Prime Minister’s question time in UK (Harris, 2001), impoliteness is used for a purposed in asymmetrical power relationships to achieve the institutional goals the members had set based on their institutional roles. Those studies are examples of sanctioned impoliteness performed by ‘institutionalized power’ and it is considered appropriate in those specific kinds of institutional discourse. Those sanctioned impolite behaviors are in accordance with the traditional view that a powerful participant has more freedom to be impolite and impoliteness more often occurs in built-in asymmetric power relationships (Culpeper, 1996) (i.e. only powerful participants practice impoliteness toward the less powerful participants). However, recent approaches in postmodern perspective (e.g. Harris, 2001; Mills, 2005; Watts, 2003; Locher and Watts, 2005) see power as a complex, negotiable, and 25 dynamic social dimension. In other words, any speaker with a lower status in conventional social hierarchy can exercise power by performing impoliteness. Even with those impolite behaviors institutionally sanctioned by the majority of its organizational members, it is important to take account of individual variations in discourse for the acceptance of impoliteness (Culpeper, 2008). In Eelen (2001), for example, power is defined as a reciprocal force that people can practice to each other, and it cannot be inherently attributed to a certain individual or to a certain situation. Culpeper (2007) also adds that impoliteness can be a useful technique to the less powerful participants or a less powerful group when they challenge the more powerful participant with an example of a student being impolite to a school teacher. Beebe (1995) argues that the main role of impoliteness is to revoke power. While following the social norm can be interpreted the speaker accepts the existing power relations, doing impoliteness is challenging the social norm and trying to overthrow the existing power relations. She specifies discursive strategies such as interruptions, sarcasm, overlaps and turn-taking in which impoliteness does the job to get power in interactions. Finally, the power issue in relational work has been always crucial. Scholars in this notion especially emphasize to analyze power empirically in face-to face social interactions. Locher (2004) summarizes the nature and exercise of power in social interaction in terms of relational work as follows: - Power is (often) expressed through language. - Power cannot be explained without contextualization. - Power is relational, dynamic and contestable. - The interconnectedness of language and society can be seen in the display of power. - Freedom of action is needed to exercise power. - The restriction of an interactant’s action-environment often leads to the exercise of power. - The exercise of power involves a latent conflict and clash of interests, which can be obscured because of a society’s ideologies. (2004: 39-40) 26 In this view, it is important to note that both power and impoliteness is discursively negotiated in social practice. The current dissertation (Study 2) analyzes political discourse from the hearing of the Korean National Assembly based on this perspective and discusses how closely the impoliteness phenomenon is related to the exercise of power. 2.6 Multimodality of impoliteness Even though it is generally agreed that non-verbal communication through gestures and prosodic features is as important as verbal communication, relatively little attention has been paid to those features in impoliteness studies. Considering that impoliteness, unlike politeness, associates true emotions and causes strong emotional reactions among participants in interaction (Kienpointner, 2008; Blitvich, 2010), it seems crucial to take into account the multimodal features in impoliteness studies. Busso et al. (2004) points that multimodal information conveys valuable information to detect accurate emotions especially when the semantic information from utterance is ambiguous. In the bottom-up approach to impoliteness (i.e. first order approach or impoliteness 1) which stresses that impoliteness should be seen as judgements and evaluations by participants in interaction and that impolite behaviors are labeled in their various terms other than simply polite and impolite, prosodic and gestural elements are important sources of evidence for accessing participants’ perceptions. 2.6.1 Prosody and impoliteness It has not been long since the aspect of prosody started to be focused in impoliteness discourse studies. Prosodic features conveys crucial information about what orthographic forms cannot, especially related to emotions. Even though researchers are aware of the important role of prosody in communication, the complicated nature of how various prosodic features work separately or interact together for communicative pragmatic functions seems to have been a challenge. The pragmatic interpretation- what kinds of emotions and attitudes are conveyed by prosody - is also a complex process. The meaning expressed through prosody for emotions and attitudes are closely related to the following features (Frick, 1985; Culpeper, 2011; Brown and Prieto, 2017): 27 • Pitch (the fundamental frequency or F0): the rate of vibration of the vocal cords (e.g. pitch range, pitch height, average pitch), the degree of highness or lowness of a tone • Speed: speech rate (e.g. syllables or words spoken per second), duration (e.g. duration of syllables or utterances), rhythm (i.e. patterning of accented syllables), and pause (frequency and length). • Loudness (intensity): measurable in Decibels. • Voice quality: the characteristic auditory coloring of voice such as breathy, whispery, creaky and harsh voice With regard to impoliteness, there are relatively few studies that have focused on prosody features. Even with some meaningful findings in literature, research on prosody in impoliteness studies seems to be still in its infancy. First, few studies addressed different prosodic characteristics between mock impoliteness and genuine impoliteness in production and perception. Andreeva and Bonacchi (2016) examined the prosodic expression of genuine and mock impoliteness in German and Polish speakers’ production and found that the genuine impoliteness is characterized by higher intensity and lower F0 variability than mock impoliteness in both languages. The study also found that German speakers produce mock impoliteness as a faster tempo than Polish speakers. McKinnon and Prieto (2014) investigated Catalan listeners’ perception of genuine and mock impoliteness and found that the listeners are sensitive to prosodic cues in their evaluation of genuine and mock impoliteness. Also the study found that higher pitch and higher intensity are closely related to genuine impoliteness. The early studies in prosody are criticized because most of them are focusing on few sentence-based isolated utterances often artificially produced in the lab (Culpeper, 2011). Only very recent works on the role of prosody in impoliteness started to focus on the context in which impoliteness talk occurs. For example, Culpeper et al. (2003) examined the BBC’s documentary television series ‘The Clampers (1998)’ and found that intonation is closely linked to the expression of impoliteness in production. The study found that the repeated falling nuclei in an utterance which conveys a sense of extreme closure is used to suppress normal turn-taking or to end a conversation. Also the study 28 argued that the slight rise at the end of an utterance can be seen as an insincerely veiled threat when the only possible interpretation of the utterance is as a command. Culpeper (2005) also examined a very particular context: the utterances of the famous British television quiz show ‘the Weakest Link’ host Anne Robinson. The study demonstrated that the host uses various prosodic features such as pitch, intensity and highly-marked pauses to create contemptuous and dismissive attitudes. 2.6.2 Gesture and impoliteness Gestures are bodily movements performed and perceived as serving to express meaning and play a crucial role in the process of interaction and communication by providing important information especially about humans’ intentions, attitudes, feelings and emotions (Kendon, 2004; Bull, 2016). Generally, gestures include hand and arm gestures, head and facial gestures, and body gestures (involvement of full boy or upper body posture), and they are often integrated with speech. Nobe (2000) says about 90% of spoken utterances in descriptive discourse are accompanied by gestures. Some researchers argue that gestures facilitate the process of speech (Freedman, 1977; Goldin- Meadow, Nusbaum, Kelly, and Wagner; 2001) and some others (McNeill 1992, Alibali, Bassok, Solomon, Syc, and Goldin-Meadow 1999; Garber and Goldin-Meadow, 2002) say that gestures and speech are part of the same cognitive source. Even though the exact role of gestures seem to be still a debated issue, a number of studies agree that gestures is an important aspect of communication especially to gain a full understanding of conversation. Related to impoliteness, people can be rude not only through speech but also through gestures. Several studies discussed gestures conveying language-and culture- specific impolite meanings (Mitra and Acharya, 2007; Kita, 2009). For example, the index finger pointing towards an older referent is considered as impolite while open-hand pointing is acceptable in Yoruba (Orie, 2009) and many East Asian countries such as Korea and Taiwan (Brown and Prieto, 2017). Also in Ghana and many other West African countries, the use of the left hand for actions such as giving, receiving, eating and drinking is considered to be impolite (Kita and Essegbey, 2001). Also the thumbs-up gesture which is perceived as positive in America and many European countries is 29 viewed as offensive in some Islamic and Asian countries (Knapp and Hall, 2009). There is experimental research which shows that gestures affect the perception of impoliteness. McKinnon and Prieto (2014) found that gesture significantly affects participants’ performance in differentiating between genuine impoliteness and mock impoliteness. Their study showed that participants differentiate mock impoliteness from genuine impoliteness when they are provided with video rather than only audio recording. Even with those meaningful findings in previous research, it seems that there is not much research done for gestures in contextual interactions for impoliteness issues. 2.7 L2 learner’s perception of impoliteness Numerous theoretical and empirical studies (e.g. Leech, 1983; Thomas, 1984; Bachman, 1990; Kasper, 1992; Siegal, 1996; Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei, 1998; Ellis, 1999; Ohta, 2005; Kasper and Rose, 2001; Eisenchlas, 2011; Spencer-Oatey, 2011; Kecskés, 2012) in interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) have shown that pragmatic competence is a crucial element along with grammatical development to communicate successfully in the target language. Pragmatic competence means L2 learner’s ability to use appropriate language that is functioning in a given situation (i.e. contextualized language use (Kasper, 1992)). It consists of pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic competence (Bella, 2011; Martinez-Flor and Fukuya, 2005). Pragmalinguistic competence means linguistic features that L2 students can use to perform speech acts appropriately such as honorific pronouns, sentence endings, and humble registers. Sociopragmatic competence is L2 learner’s ability to interpret sociocultural information in interactions and also how to apply their communicative strategies appropriately in interaction (Bella, 2011; Blattner and Fiori, 2011). When L2 learners fail to acquire pragmatic competence, they may be misunderstood or misjudged as rude, offensive and worse in communication. However, developing pragmatic competence in L2 is a quite intricate process. According to Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei (1998), grammatical development does not guarantee a corresponding level of pragmatic development. It means even advanced learners may fail to perceive or to interpret pragmatic information in target context and use L2 inappropriately. For example, Faerch and Kasper (1989) found that an advanced German learner of English failed to distinguish between referential talk and phatic talk 30 and misunderstood the native English speaker’s question about his well-being as phatic talk. Jaworski (1994) also observed advanced Polish learners of English misinterpreted phatic greetings as an information inquiry. In Cook (1999), novice L2 Japanese learners fail to notice the inappropriate informal speech style while they were asked to focus on specific context. It means the novice L2 learners failed to execute two tasks (i.e. understanding both context and pragmatic appropriateness) simultaneously even though they had knowledge for both tasks. Having pragmatic knowledge does not seem to guarantee successful performance using the pragmatic knowledge as native speakers do especially when L2 learners are doing multiple tasks. In addition to the complicated process of acquiring pragmatic competence, another issue, which is directly connected to the current dissertation, is that not much attention has been paid to impoliteness aspect in studies of L2 learning. Most previous studies on L2 pragmatic competence have focused on how to perform speech acts politely in the boundary of the conventional norms in target language (Koike, 1989; Bardovi‐ Harlig, Kathleen, and Zoltán Dörnyei, 1998) and simply treated impoliteness as a pragmatic failure (e.g. Thomas, 1983; Nelson, Al-Batal and Echols, 1996; Dash, 2004; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2011; Baumer and Van Rensburg, 2011). Even for the potential situations that can be interpreted as face-threatening speech act such as refusals (Beebe and Cummings, 1985; Takahashi and Beebe, 1986), disagreement (LoCastro, 1986; Pomerantz, 1984), complaints (Bonikowska, 1985; Olshtain and Weinbach, 1986) and disapproval (D’Amico-Reisner, 1983), the major focus is how to perform those speech acts politely to minimize the L2 learners’ risks of offending their interlocutors. The impoliteness aspect of language has been largely ignored or even avoided in L2 learning. Most recently, however, there has been an increasing attention placed on the impoliteness aspect of language in L2 acquisition. More researchers have recognized that it is an indubitable fact that our daily life is a series of conflicts with others and impoliteness exists in almost all kinds of human interactions, not excepting L2 learners. It is important for L2 learners to acquire the ability to produce and perceive impolite behavior in a target language. Mugford (2008) argues that impoliteness is neglected in the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom even though L2 students may experience impoliteness in their daily life outside of classroom in interaction in L2, and suggests that 31 L2 learners need to be prepared for possible impolite situations even in the target language interaction. Brown (2013a) also points that there is an implicit belief in L2 Korean teaching that foreigners do not need to learn casual/informal/non-honorific speech styles and stresses the importance of introducing casual and informal language such as non-honorific panmal to L2 Korean learners. Both studies emphasize that L2 learners need to understand impoliteness in target language not necessarily for production but for perception. L2 learners at least need to be able to understand when someone in interaction is being rude, aggressive, threatening, or sarcastic. Despite increasing emphasis on L2 learner’s perception of impoliteness, the literature on L2 learners’ perception and awareness of impoliteness is extremely scarce and our understanding of how L2 learners perceive and conceptualize impoliteness phenomena in a target language is still in its early stages. One of the consistent findings in a few studies on L2 learner’s perception of impoliteness is that there is a cross-cultural and cross-language variation in L2 learners’ perception of the impoliteness phenomenon. It does not seem too surprising when we consider the great variation in manners or etiquette across countries on the most general level. For example, Chang (2008) compared the culture and gender effects on the impoliteness perceptions of the speech act of apology with two groups of Australian and Taiwanese Chinese speakers. The study concluded that the cultural factor has a greater impact on the perceptions of impoliteness than the gender factor. Culpeper et al. (2010) also investigated the cross-cultural difference in English, Chinese, Finnish, German, and Turkish university students' perceptions of impoliteness by analyzing 500 written impoliteness events reported by those students. The result supported cross-cultural variation in the perception of impoliteness. For example, Chinese students felt more offended when their ‘equity rights’ (i.e. a desire to be treated fairly) were violated while English students perceived greater offense to their ‘quality face’ (i.e. personal quality such as confidence, abilities or appearance). Tajeddin et al. (2014) also found the cross-cultural variation by investigating native English speakers’ and EFL learners’ criteria and perceptions of impoliteness of the speech act of apology. Also only few studies have examined the instructional effects in L2 learner’s perception of impoliteness. Rieger (2015) compared L2 German learners’ comments in 32 their L2 German with comments in their native language, English, on the same video clip that includes impolite behaviors. The result shows that L2 learners show a more elaborate awareness on impoliteness and discuss impoliteness in their L2 more effectively after completing a handout with specific questions about contexts. Brown (2013a) used an authentic TV drama context and Haugh and Chang (2015) used interactions from the authentic L1 corpus data to raise L2 learners’ awareness of impolite features and received positive responses from learners that those authentic materials helped them understand the impoliteness in their target languages. The literature reviewed above suggests that we still need more empirical studies focusing on L2 learners’ perception process itself such as what kinds of factors may affect their process of perceiving pragmatic aspects and their functions in the context of L2 acquisition which the current dissertation tries to answer especially for impoliteness aspect in target language. 2.8 Korean honorifics and impoliteness 2.8.1 Honorifics in Korean For the reader’s better understanding of Korean data and arguments in the current dissertation, this section introduces Korean honorifics. Korean honorifics consists of addressee-related honorifics (concerning the person that one is speaking to) and referent- related honorifics (concerning the person that one is speaking about). First, the addressee- related honorifics reflect the speaker’s respect towards the addressee (i.e. interlocutor in conversation) and are expressed by different speech styles. In contemporary Korean, there are four main speech styles4 based on the sentence final verb endings (Sohn, 2001; Choo, 2006). (1) Addressee-related honorifics: four speech styles • Deferential: -supnita or -pnita • Polite: -yo • Intimate: no ending or –a 4 Some studies may say that Korean language has six speech styles including two minor speech styles: the familiar style (-ney) and the semiformal style (–so). They are all-but-defunct speech styles that are rarely used by contemporary Korean speakers. The current dissertation excludes these two speech styles because they are no longer used in contemporary Korean. 33 • Plain: -ta Different speech styles are used for different social relationships between the speaker and the interlocutor (e.g. age, social status, or solidarity), or for different social occasions. For example, the deferential style is used for the formal and public conversation setting such as news broadcast, lecture, or public announcement or by a junior/younger person to a senior/older person. The polite speech style is also used when a junior/younger person addresses to a senior/older person but in a less-formal or everyday type of conversation. The intimate and plain speech styles are used to intimates of similar age or younger in a casual conversation (Sohn, 2001; Eun and Strauss, 2004; Brown, 2010). In general, the deferential and polite speech styles are categorized as honorific styles (i.e. contaymal ‘respectful speech’) and the intimate and plain speech styles as non-honorific speech styles (i.e. panmal ‘half speech’). There are also referent-related honorifics. The major referent honorifics examples include the verbal suffix (–(u)si), the honorific case particles (–kkeyse and -kkey), several honorific lexical items (nouns and verbs), and humble expressions (i.e. object honorifics). (2) Referent-related honorifics • Verbal suffix: –(u)si • Nominative suffix: -nim • Case particle: –kkeyse (nominative), -kkey (accusative/recipient) • Lexical items Verbs: tusita / capswusita ‘eat/drink’ cwumwusita ‘sleep’ tolakasita ‘die’ Nouns: cinci ‘meal’ tayk ‘house’ yensey ‘age’ • Humble forms: ce ‘1st person’ tulita ‘give’ yeccwupta ‘ask’ 34 Even though referent honorifics are clearly distinguished from addressee honorifics, it is quite natural in Korean language that they occur simultaneously when the addressee and the referent of the subject are the same one. For example, when a student talks to a professor, both addressee honorifics (the polite speech ending) and referent honorifics (- nim, and –si) may appear at the same time within a single utterance as follows: kyoswu-nim encey o-si-ess-eyo? Professor-NOM.HON when come-HON-PST-POL ‘Professor, when did you come?’ As illustrated so far, the Korean language is certainly one of few languages in the world that has an extremely complex and elaborate honorifics system and the system of honorifics is one of the most important aspects in Korean language. It is almost impossible to understand any social interaction in Korean without considering the usage of honorifics because Korean speakers either consciously or unconsciously must make a decision of appropriate honorifics for every single communication they encounter. In social interactions, Korean honorifics are crucial linguistic markers indexing social hierarchy (age, rank, power etc.) and solidarity between the speaker and the addressee/referent, and also important pragmatic markers showing the degree of im/politeness of utterance. Related to the current dissertation, it is important to note that Korean honorifics are quite volitional options to native Korean speakers rather than rigid and obligatory linguistic rules such as grammatical agreement (Yoo, 1996; Pizziconi, 2003; Choe, 2004; Kim and Sells, 2007; Brown, 2013a). The in/appropriateness of honorifics is also highly dependent to the context of use and more closely related to how the speaker wishes to represent his/her social relationship with others in context. For example, the deferential speech style is not always perceived as more polite than the polite speech style, and non- honorific panmal (i.e. the intimate or plain speech style) is not necessarily the least polite or impolite speech style (Choo, 2006; Brown, 2011; Hatfield and Hahn, 2011; Yoon, 2015). Also honorifics can be used more strategically in social interaction for various communicative purposes. Using honorifics sarcastically in Korean (Brown, 2013a) or 35 Japanese (Okushi, 1998; Okamoto, 2002; Barke, 2011), which I discuss in the next section, is now one of the familiar examples showing that honorifics does not always convey the meaning of ‘deference’ or ‘respect’ and rather functions as an impoliteness tool. Therefore, there is always discursive negotiation in interaction between the social norms/ expectations/ ideologies regarding im/politeness and the speaker’s volitional choice on honorifics: whether he/she would use honorifics or in what degree the speaker would use honorifics (Brown, 2011; Pizziconi, 2011). Another issue is related to Korean honorifics in second language acquisition. Many studies (e.g. Sohn, 2001; Wang, 1995; Byon, 2000; Brown, 2011) argue that learning Korean honorifics is a challenging task especially to those L2 learners from Western countries that have no direct correspondents of Korean honorifics in their L1s. The L2 learner’s learning difficulty of Korean honorifics could be caused by complicated linguistic features of honorifics that appear on the surface of the sentence level. It is directly related to L2 learner’s performance issue: how they choose appropriate honorifics and how correctly they use honorifics in their utterance. However, pragmatic interpretation or perception of honorifics also adds another layer of difficulty to L2 learners for learning Korea honorifics and ultimately achieving interlanguage pragmatic competence. Even though there is active discussion on the various discursive functions and dynamic uses of honorifics in real social contexts in recent academic research, Korean honorifics are still introduced to second language (L2) learners as obligatory grammatical features or rules that are linear (i.e. hierarchical), rigid and non-negotiable (Brown, 2011). The current dissertation argues that this too-simplified illustration of Korean honorifics to L2 learners causes their pragmatic perception errors of im/politeness in the target language. Study 3 (Chapter 5) will discuss this issue in more detail with the results from the empirical experiment on L2 learner’s perception of impoliteness. 2.8.2 Sarcastic honorifics use for impoliteness Sarcasm is typically understood as verbal irony which conveys opposite meanings from what is expressed on surface (Lee and Katz, 1998; Leech, 2014). It is also called ironic insults (Dews and Winner, 1995) because the positive literal meaning is destroyed by the negative intended meaning and it eventually damages the face of the target. 36 Creusere (1999) points three major elements that compose sarcastic utterances: positive literal meanings, negative intended meanings, and clear victims. Grice (1989) also states that verbal irony is intentionally produced by the speaker to reflect his/her hostile and derogatory feeling towards the addressee. It certainly seems that sarcasm is used as a verbal tool for impoliteness but there are arguments on which one is perceived as more negative between a direct insult and sarcasm. One is an argument that sarcasm boosts the criticism conveyed by a direct insult (Colston, 1997; Toplak and Katz; 2000) and is perceived as more negative (Bowes and Katz, 2011). The other is an argument that sarcasm does not elicit more negative judgements (Dews et al., 1995; Dews and Winner, 1995) and instead is perceived as less aggressive than a direct insult (Giora, 2003). Also some studies argue that there is an advantage of using sarcasm to the speaker because sarcasm is more often perceived as humorous, entertaining and witty than direct insults (Dews and Winner, 1995; Singh, 2012; Leech, 2014). Leech (2014) argues that sarcasm boosts the face of speaker while the face of target is damaged and also the speaker can always claim that the intended meaning was the literal one (i.e. the polite surface). Using honorifics for sarcasm is one of distinctive impolite features that is often observed in utterances in Korean and Japanese languages. Korean and Japanese have a grammaticalized system of honorifics which are typically associated with politeness for the meaning of respect and deference. As described in the previous section, the speaker generally uses honorifics when the addressee’s status is higher or older than the speaker and also when their relationship is not intimate. Utterances with honorifics can also be perceived as sarcastic when it is used in the contexts where they are not expected or when they are unexpectedly over-used (i.e. when they are marked). Although numerous linguistic and pragmatic studies have approached the issues of honorifics in Japanese and Korean, there are not many empirical studies conducted on the sarcastic usage of honorifics and there are barely any studies that have examined sarcastic honorific use in a naturally occurring discourse. In Japanese, Okamoto (2002) investigated the influence of honorifics on the perception of irony. The result shows that utterances with honorifics were judged to be more ironic than those without honorifics and overpolite utterances with honorifics to the 37 low-status addressees were judged to be more ironic than to the high-status addressees. Utsumi (2004) conducted experiments on the two different functions of verbal irony: the negative one such as to be sarcastic and to criticize and the positive one such as to be humorous, and examined what role honorifics and contextual information play on the degree and the function of irony. The results show that the degree of irony/sarcasm was affected primarily by the use of honorifics. Honorific utterances were rated significantly more ironic and sarcastic than non-honorific utterances, while the degree of humor was affected by both honorifics and contextual information as honorific utterances about the addressee’s usual (i.e. expected) negative behavior were rated as more humorous than non-honorific utterances about the unusual negative behavior. Studies on Korean honorifics for verbal irony are much scarcer. Brown (2013a) analyzed Korean TV dramas and demonstrated that honorifics can be used both for mock impoliteness (e.g. teasing and banter in the intimate relationship) and genuine face- threatening impoliteness. The study also showed that the sarcastic meaning by honorifics becomes more salient when the utterance is used in close relationships which share situational knowledge and references. While most studies on sarcastic honorifics focus on the mismatch environment where honorifics is used for the lower-status reference or addressee, Yoon (2015) pointed out that honorifics also can be used for sarcastic or insulting utterances not only by being mismatched with the non-honorific reference but also by paring with negative emotional expressions such as the negative expressive verbal suffix –peli or the verbal prefix chye- which convey negative attitudes towards the reference. This study argues that verbal irony is established by expressions across different dimensions: the emotional dimension and the honorific dimension. 38 CHAPTER III STUDY 1: IMPOLITENESS AND IDENTITY 3.1 Introduction “identity… it is shaped from moment to moment in interaction” (Bucholtz and Hall, 2005: 591) “identities are emergent, relational and co-constructed and … (im)politeness is an interactional resource used to construct identities” (Donaghue, 2018: 101) This chapter, impoliteness and identity, is the first study in a series of three empirical studies that the current dissertation provides under the keyword impoliteness. The chapter may work on its own as an independent study but ultimately seeks an answer with the two other studies for the fundamental assumption of the current dissertation: impoliteness may play a crucial role in linguistic interaction for interactants’ identity construction and power negotiation which both inevitably occur in all human interaction. This chapter explores the first link between impoliteness and identity construction: how identities are constructed, negotiated and achieved in discourse where linguistic impoliteness phenomena are observed and what kinds of roles impoliteness plays for identity construction in interaction. The understanding of identity has shifted in recent decades from the traditional view that identity is a fixed and static psychological sense of self to the unstable and relational concept that is constantly negotiated, constructed and shaped in interactions (Butler, 1990; Giddens, 1991; Bucholtz and Hall, 2005; Donaghue, 2018). In this post- modern perspective, identity is what participants in social practice perform to achieve a particular goal rather than a resultative state (Butler, 1990; Antaki and Widdicombe, 1998; Sarangi and Roberts, 1999). Especially many sociolinguists (Moerman, 1993; Aronsson, 1998; Sidnell, 2008; Bucholtz and Hall, 2005; Varghese et al., 2005) focused on discourse (i.e. the linguistic interaction) to examine the emergence of identity and argued that identity is a not only psychological but also a linguistic phenomenon. 39 The understanding of impoliteness and methodological approaches to it have been also revised from the classical models inspired by Brown and Levinson’s (1987) during the last two decades. Researchers started focusing on the discursive nature of impoliteness and seeing the impoliteness phenomenon as a discursive struggle and negotiation between participants in linguistic interaction (Locher, 2004; Locher and Watts, 2008; Bousfield, 2008; Donaghue, 2018). To find what impoliteness does in linguistic interaction, the importance of empirical research has noticeably increased for the study of impoliteness, and scholars have become more interested in ‘situated’ genres or institutional interactions in which there are contextual norms and expectations that influence participants’ judgements on impoliteness. However, empirical studies on the relationship between impoliteness and identity construction in linguistic interaction are still scarce, and studies on discourse data from the naturally-occurred interactions in the real world are extremely rare, much more so with Korean contexts. More empirical research with refined and sophisticated analyses with various contextual interactions are needed to obtain a fuller and deeper understanding of the relationship between identity and impoliteness. To fill the gap, the current study has chosen a specific genre ‘TV talk show’ and examines how identities are constructed, negotiated and performed along with an impoliteness phenomenon through an analysis of discourse between an impolite TV show host and celebrity guests. There are several studies that focused on specific impolite celebrities in TV shows for the issue of impoliteness. Bousfield (2007) studied interlocutor’s response options to impoliteness by examining the interaction between Gordon Ramsay and his kitchen staffs from ‘the Hell’s Kitchen’ and found that ‘not to respond to impoliteness (i.e. stay silence)’ is one of interactant’s response options when there is great power imbalance and it eventually triggers more impoliteness from Gordon Ramsay. Blitvich, Bou-Franch and Lorenzo-Dus (2013) analyzed identities of Simon Cowell from ‘the American Idol’ such as an expert, an authoritative and cruel judge when he is being mean and impolite towards his contestants. Culpeper (2005) focused prosodic aspects of impoliteness with the data of Anne Robinson from ‘the Weakest Link’ and discussed the entertaining functions of impoliteness in the media discourse. 40 However, most previous studies still focused only on the impolite figures and discussed their impolite utterances mainly. It has not been discussed enough how other participants in interaction perceive, judge and react to impolite behaviors and what kind roles impoliteness plays in linguistic interaction. Moreover, none of the previous studies looked into the issue of identity and impoliteness in the context of Korean TV shows. By choosing the specific genre ‘Korean TV talk show’, the current study provides meaningful empirical evidence for the relationship between identity construction and impoliteness in linguistic interaction from polylogal discourse genre. The research questions are as follows: 1. What are the impoliteness strategies observed in the Korean TV talk show? 2. What kinds of identity are performed by the show host when he is being impolite and how do those identities emerge in discourse? 3. What kinds of identity are performed by the celebrity guests when their faces are attacked and how do those identities emerge in discourse? 4. How is impolite linguistic behavior connected to identity construction in interaction? This study argues that identity is discursively co-constructed and negotiated by participants in interaction involving the face aggravation from moment to moment. There are identities that a speaker wants to represent him/herself with by performing impolite behaviors, but the speaker’s behaviors are also more-negatively marked or less- negatively marked in context depending on how the interlocutor reacts to the speaker’s face attacks. Those reactions of the interlocutor towards the speaker’s impoliteness also reveals the interlocutor’s identities in interaction. Participants on the TV show negotiate their identities quite sensitively in front of TV camera while considering TV viewers. Participants’ identities emerge in discursive struggles in interaction. 41 3.2 Data and Methodology 3.2.1 Contextualizing interview data It is a quite recent trend in South Korea that people have started ‘being impolite’ on TV shows. Korean TV contents used to be monitored and controlled by the government and any impolite behavior or language violating the social norm ‘politeness’ was strictly prohibited on TV by the government’s policies and regulations. TV programs were produced in the boundary of the government censorship and were used as media for promoting their nationalistic ideal language use5 (Millim, 2011). However, with the boom of cable TV channels which were relatively less controlled by the government and their many successful programs after 2000 (Nam, 2008), the major national TV networks are recently undergoing many changes and ‘being impolite’ on TV is one of the most distinctive recent changes from the old Korean TV programs6. The TV talk show ‘Radio Star’ which has been chosen as data for this study is a weekly television talk show produced by Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation (MBC). MBC is one of the major South Korean television and radio networks. The show has aired for about 12 years in South Korea since its first episode was broadcasted in May 2007 on MBC’s channel 11. The talk show is hosted by four male entertainers. For each episode, the show invites three or four celebrities as guests from various fields. The show airs at 11 pm late night on Wednesday targeting adult viewers and its primary goal is to entertain viewers mainly by humiliating celebrity guests on TV. The talk show has made a huge success with the show hosts’ non-traditional explicit aggression and impoliteness towards the guests, which was quite deviated from the traditional politeness norm of the standard TV shows in Korea. One of the main reasons for the success of the show is the host Gura Kim (hereafter referred as Gura). 5 The Korean Broadcasting Act (Law article no. 51-1) says TV broadcasting should contribute to promoting Korean people’s proper language use. It is the first article opening the chapter of regulations for the language use of TV broadcasting. 6 The Law article no. 51-3 in the Korean Broadcasting Act was revised in 2014 as follows: (Original) Inappropriate languages harming the right language life such as slang words, swear words, profanity, coinages, fad words, panmal, specific accent and tones are prohibited in broadcasting. (After the revision: the following sentence was added to the original article) However, there are exceptions when those inappropriate languages are inevitable as the characters of the programs or for the plots. 42 Gura has built a notorious reputation with makmal ‘trash talk or rough words’, spiteful remarks and unmitigated straightforward comments on the Internet radio shows which were relatively free from censorship. Gura is often considered as an originator of makmal ‘trash talk’ entertainment shows in Korean public TV history and a major contributor who has characterized ‘Radio Star’ as the very first impolite TV show in South Korea. He differentiated ‘Radio Star’ from other traditional Korean entertainment talk shows with his unique impolite character. He was the first Korean TV show host on a public TV network to perform as an impolite character and became a symbolic impolite figure in Korean TV history (Fig 3.1). Fig 3.1 Four hosts of ‘Radio Star’: Gura is sitting the second from the left. 3.2.2. The data The data for the present study has been extracted from two episodes on the basis that they appeared to contain discourse between Gura and celebrity guests in which Gura’s impolite linguistic behaviors are deployed and also the guests’ immediate reactions which can be evaluated as offended, embarrassed or insulted are observed, as is the case with the data that the current study aims to analyze here. Among many celebrities who appeared as guest on the show ‘Radio Star’, the current study has specifically chosen the interactions between Gura and the guests who are singers. Other celebrities such as comedians or actors who often appear in comedy TV shows may not be afraid to lose face in order to entertain the audience and to elicit laughter on TV. Compared to them, singers who rarely appear in comedy TV shows were assumed to show relatively natural reactions to Gura’s face attacks. To observe various impolite 43 linguistic strategies and co-participants’ reactions to them, each example consists of Gura’s interaction with a different singer guest. The first example has been excerpted from the episode #343 which aired on September 4, 2013. It is an interaction between Gura and the singer Jiyoung Kang (hereafter referred as Jiyoung), a member of South Korean pop girl group ‘Kara’ (Fig 3.2). The second and third examples have been taken from the episode #344 which aired on September 11, 2013. They are interactions between Gura and the singer JK Dong-uk (hereafter referred as Dong-uk) and between Gura and the opera singer Sumi Jo (hereafter referred as Sumi) respectively (Fig 3.3). Fig 3.2 Guests of episode #343 (From the left, JYP and three members of Kara. Jiyoung is sitting at the very right) Fig 3.3 Guests of the episode #344 (From the left, Sumi, Dong-uk, Jio and Kangta) 3.2.3 Methodology The data consists of three sets of interactions between the show host Gura and three different celebrity guests extracted from ‘Radio Star’. It has been transcribed for qualitative and critical-discourse analytic (CDA) reading for close examination on the interconnection between identity construction and impoliteness phenomenon. Transcribed data was analyzed both at the micro level focusing on linguistic features of texts and at 44 the macro level focusing on its social and genre-specific context. The study then tried to bring the findings together and illustrate how the data of the study constructs a representation of social identity construction in interaction where impoliteness occurs. The analysis is based on the understanding of both identity and impoliteness as relational work (Locher, 2004; Locher and Watts, 2005; Watts, 2005; Locher, 2006) discursively constructed in social interaction. In this approach, the judgement of impoliteness needs to be understood and interpreted as negatively-marked behavior evaluated by interactants themselves in ongoing social interaction (i.e. bottom-up approach or first-order approach). Applying the bottom-up approach, special research attention has been paid to identity emergence, negotiation and construction within the linguistic interactions in which Gura’s impolite linguistic behaviors were found. However, unlike judgements on impolite behaviors by researchers observed after an interaction has ended (i.e. top-down approach or second-order/theory-based approach), the evaluative expressions for inappropriate behavior such as impolite, rude, aggressive or offensive are rarely produced by participants during the course of an interaction (Locher and Watts, 2005). The study, therefore, has paid close attention to not only the verbal comments (i.e. linguistic elements such as honorifics, speech styles, lexemes etc.) made by participants but also to metapragmatic visual signals such as facial and body expressions to find interpretable evidence as much as possible to assess participants’ immediate reactions in interaction. Another analytical framework for the current study is the identity work proposed by Bucholtz and Hall (2005). This framework provides new insights into the concept of identity and a great guideline for the study of identity. In their socio-constructivist approach, identity is viewed not as a static individual psychological sense of self but a relational and socio-cultural phenomenon which discursively emerges in social interaction. Bucholtz and Hall (2005) especially stress that the process of identity construction is individual and at the same time social, which means that identity is co- constructed and negotiated through linguistic interaction with others in local context such as genre-specific or institutionally situated interactions. The study has analyzed all three examples based on their principles: the emergent, relational, discursive and local aspects of identity construction. 45 3.3 Analysis and discussion In this section, I analyze the three discourse data sets between the show host Gura and the guest singers excerpted from the TV talk show ‘Radio Star’ and discuss the emergence and negotiation of their identities in discursive struggle between them when Gura attacks their face on TV camera. Gura shows several identities in the interactions with the guests, Jiyoung and Dong-uk, and he constantly negotiates his identities depending on the guests’ different reactions. The guests, Jiyoung, Dong-uk and Sumi, also reveals their multiple identities in the interaction with Gura and show different reactions to Gura’s impolite linguistic behaviors. Their reactions have an effect marking Gura’s behaviors more (or less) negatively and Gura sensitively shifts his identities time to time depending on the guests’ reactions towards his impoliteness. 3.3.1 Gura and K-pop idol Jiyoung The first example [Excerpt 1] starts with one of the hosts (not Gura) asking the guest Jiyoung to show aykyo to one of their cameras. The word aykyo refers to ‘childish cuteness’ as a way to display affection and it is usually expressed with baby/child facial expressions, hand gestures or voices. This term aykyo has become famous worldwide because it is quite common for K-pop idols to perform this exaggerated cuteness on camera and they are often asked to show aykyo on TV shows (Fig 3.4). The term aykyo has become a word which means the K-pop idol cuteness. (Oh, 2015). Fig 3.4 Examples of aykyo by K-pop idols The following analysis illustrates that the host Gura’s various identities emerge in a discursive struggle with his guest Jiyoung when he aggressively and rudely asks her to show aykyo with various linguistic strategies. In this example, Gura appears as a malicious and cruel interviewer and an elder/senior (先輩, senpay) moment by moment 46 in the interaction with Jiyoung. The guest Jiyoung’s reaction to Gura’s negative face- aggressive attacks in this example reveals her identity as a vulnerable victim and a young girl in this interaction and makes Gura’s behavior more negatively marked. Gura also negotiates his identity between his impolite and rude persona breaching the norm of Korean public TV shows and a polite interviewer that is a norm of TV shows. It rarely occurs that a guest of the show ‘Radio Star’ has a breakdown during a conversation, but the guest Jiyoung starts crying in front of the cameras as the reaction to Gura’s face attacks. [Excerpt 1] 1 Yun (another host): a, poyecwu-sey-yo. il pen khameyla kamtok-nim. EX show-HON-POL one number camera director-HON ‘Ah, please show (aykyo) (to) the camera one.’ 2 Jiyoung: e, molla-yo. uh not.know-POL ‘Well, I don’t know.’ 3 ce cincca eps-nuntey 1.HBL really not.have-CIRCUM ‘I really don’t have (‘aykyo’ to show). 4 way cakkwu aykyo-ka iss-tako kule-ci? why repeatedly aykyo-NOM have-COMP say-COM ‘Why do people repeatedly say that I have aykyo?’ 5 Gura: ni-ka molu-myen nwu-ka al-a? You-NOM not.know-COND who-NOM know-IE.Q ‘If you don’t know (what your aykyo is), who knows?’ 6 a, cengmal EX really ‘Ah, for Christ’s sake!’ 7 Kang.Jiyoung aykyo-lul Kang.Jiyoung-ika molu-myen, Jiyoung aykyo-ACC Jiyoung-NOM not.know-COND ‘If Jiyoung doesn’t know Jiyoung’s aykyo,’ 8 nwu-ka a-nya-ko? who-NOM know-IE.Q? ‘who knows (your aykyo)?’ 47 9 Kim.Gura-ka a-nyako? Gura-NOM know-IE.Q ‘Does Gura know (Jiyoung’s aykyo)? 10 Yun (another host): elma cen-ey shot.time ago-TEM 11 Gura-ka i thon-ulo yokhay-ss-ta, pangsong-eyse Gura-NOM this tone-with swear-PST-DEC TV-LOC ‘Gura swore in this tone on TV the other day.’ 12 Gura: (To Yun) nay-ka encey yokhay-ss-eyo? I-NOM when swear-PST-POL.Q ‘When did I swear?’ 13 (To Jiyoung) ani, aykyo-lul poyecwe-yo. no aykyo-ACC show-POL ‘Just show (your) aegyo.’ 14 Jiyoung: a, ce cincca… (Jiyoung starts crying with shaking her head) EX I really ‘Ah, I really (can’t show aegyo).’ 15 Gura: ike-y aykyo-y-a? this-NOM aykyo-COP-IE.Q ‘Is this (crying) (your) aegyo?’ 16 Jiyoung: a, cincca epsta-nikka EX really not.have-CIRCUM 17 way cakkwu kulay-yo? (start crying) why repeatedly do.like-POL.Q ‘Ah, why do you keep asking even I told you I really didn’t have (any aykyo)? 18 Gura: mianha-y, mianha-y. sorry-IE sorry-IE ‘Sorry, sorry.’ 19 a, eps-nun-ci molla-ss-e. EX not.have-RL-NOM not.know-PST-IE ‘Ah, I didn’t know that (you) don’t have.’ 20 eps-nun-ci molla-ss-e. not.have-RL-NOM not.know-PST-IE ‘I didn’t know that (you) don’t have.’ ======================================================= 48 1 Yun: 아, (애교) 보여주세요. 1 번 카메라 감독님(에게) 2 Jijyoung: 어, 몰라요. 3 저 진짜 (애교) 없는데… 4 왜 자꾸 (사람들이) 애교가 있다고 그러지… 5 Gura: 니가 모르면 누가 알아? 6 아, 정말. 7 강지영 애교를 강지영이가 모르면 8 누가 아냐고. 9 김구라가 아냐고. 10 Yun : 얼마 전에 11 김구라가 이 톤으로 욕했다. 방송에서. 12 Gura: (종신에게) 내가 언제 욕했어요? 13 Gura: (지영에게) 아니, 애교를 보여줘요. 14 Jiyoung: 아, 저 진짜 (애교 못하는데) (울먹임) 15 Gura: 이게 애교야? 16 Jiyoung: 아, 진짜 없다니까 17 왜 자꾸 그래요. (울음) 18 Gura: 미안해, 미안해. 19 아, 없는지 몰랐어. 20 없는지 몰랐어. In Line 1, one of the show hosts (Yun) asks Jiyoung to show her aykyo. The host Yun is using the polite speech style -yo in his utterance. Jiyoung, however, indirectly refuses his request to show her aykyo in Line 2, 3 and 4 by saying ‘I don’t know (what aykyo you’re asking)’, ‘I don’t understand why people say that I have aykyo’ and ‘I don’t have any aykyo’. When Jiyoung keeps refusing to show aykyo, Gura suddenly uses strong panmal (the informal speech) towards Jiyoung in Line 5 (i.e. switching his speech style from the polite –yo style to panmal). Gura is being annoyed by Jiyoung’s continuous refusals and keeps using panmal to Jiyoung throughout Line 5-8. Gura’s anger and frustration towards Jiyoung is clearly expressed in Line 6 by mumbling to himself without any mitigation or moderation for TV as ‘For Christ’s sake!’. Gura also uses the interrogative sentence final ending –nyako for saying ‘If Jiyoung doesn’t know 49 Jiyoung’s aykyo, who knows?’ in Line 7 and ‘Does Gura know (Jiyoung’s aykyo)?’ in Line 8. The interrogative sentence ending –nyako is used for blaming, complaining and scolding in a question form (the National Institute of Korean Language: Standard Korean Dictionary). After Gura’s panmal, another host Yun also switches his speech style to panmal when speaking to Jiyoung right after Gura in Line 10-11 saying ‘Gura swore with the exactly same tone in the TV show the other day’. Yun means that Jiyoung had better show her aykyo before Gura starts swearing at her. Considering that swear words could be more aggressive and insulting than panmal, Line 10-11 sounds as if Yun threatens Jiyoung. After hearing Gura’s yelling in panmal, Jiyoung finally bursts out crying in Line 14. Seeing Jiyoung burst crying, even when all other hosts seem flustered with Jiyoung’s unexpected reaction, Gura continues using panmal in Line 15 with the nuance that her sudden crying is absurd and disappointing. In Line 15, Gura sarcastically asks ‘Is crying your aykyo?’ still in panmal but finally apologies to her in Line 18-20 when Jiyoung keeps crying. However, Gura keeps panmal in his apologies. Fig 3.5 Gura is yelling at Jiyoung in panmal (left) and Jiyoung bursts crying (right) a. Gura’s identities In Excerpt 1, Gura’s multiple identities emerge in the discursive interaction with Jiyoung. First, he does not hesitate to use panmal to elicit what he or his TV show wants from the guest. He represents himself as the most malicious and cruel interviewer among the hosts and does not hesitate to attack guests with his rude, hostile, and disrespectful demeanor to achieve what he wants from the guest for the TV show. In this interaction, Jiyoung expresses multiple times that she does not want to show aykyo (Line 2, 3, 4, and 14). However, Gura asks her to show aykyo in a much more aggressive and impolite tone with panmal than any other hosts. One time, he tones down his request by switching from 50 panmal to the polite -yo ending in Line 13. However, when he sees that his mild tone also does not work, he switches back to panmal when Jiyoung begins to cry and sarcastically asks, ‘is your crying aykyo?’ in Line 15. Secondly, the way Gura is asking and urging Jiyoung to show aykyo is more close to scolding and rebuking as an elder/senior (先輩, senpay) rather than requesting as an interviewer to a guest. Especially with explicit panmal, the interrogative sentence ending –ko boosts the intensity of scolding and blaming in Gura’s utterances in Line 8-9. The ending –ko is an interrogative sentence ending when people blame, scold or complain about someone/something in interrogative structure (the National Institute of Korean Language: Standard Korean Dictionary). In Line 8-9, Gura appears as an elder/senior (先 輩, senpay) chiding a young junior for her refusal of an elder/senior’s request. Jiyoung was 20 years old at the time the TV show was broadcasted and Gura was 43. Besides their age gap, Gura is also a senior to Jiyoung in the entertainment field in Korea. In Korean culture, an elder or senior is implicitly given authority to use panmal and to scold a junior or a younger person. Rather than being an interviewer of a TV show who is following the norm using the polite speech style and the honorifics to the guest regardless of their ages, Gura represents himself to Jiyoung at the moment as an elder/senior and scolds her for refusing what her senior asks. The informal speech style panmal and the blaming/scolding interrogative sentence ending –nyako are not only tools for Gura to be impolite but also discursive elements revealing his identity as an elder/senior to Jiyoung with the culturally-given elder’s authority. Lastly, it is important to notice that Gura constantly negotiates his identities between the extremely rude and disrespectful character breaching the norm of Korean TV shows and the traditional polite TV show host in the interaction with Jiyoung. After Jiyoung rejects to show aykyo in Line 2-4, Gura is aggressively and persistently asking her to show her aykyo in Line 5-9 in panmal. However, when another host Yun says that Gura has sworn in the exact same tone in another TV show in Line 10-11, Gura suddenly changes his panmal to the polite speech style to Jiyoung in Line 13 after denying that he swore on TV in Line 12. Gura’s sudden switching of the speech style shows that Gura is negotiating his identity by adjusting the degree of rudeness he wants to perform as his character. He seems fine being a rude show host who uses panmal (the informal speech 51 style) to his guest but does not seem to be comfortable to be seen as a rude person who swears to his guest on TV. His negotiating of identity continues in interaction. When Jiyoung keeps rejecting to show aykyo in Line 14 even with Gura’s relatively mild request in Line 13, Gura immediately switches back to panmal, this time sarcastically blaming Jiyoung by asking ‘Is crying your aykyo?’ in Line 15. When Gura finally realizes Jiyoung is seriously crying because of him, he apologies multiple times in Line 18-20 which mitigates his impolite behaviors and attacks towards Jiyoung. However, he still uses panmal even though when he apologies. In this interaction, Gura constantly negotiates his identity with Jiyoung not to be an extremely offensive person that may offend TV viewers and tries to avoid being blamed by them. b. Jiyoung’s identities In the interaction Excerpt 1, the guest Jiyoung is a vulnerable victim of Gura’s fact attack. At the beginning of the excerpt, Jiyoung refuses Gura’s request to show aykyo. She expresses her discomfort to show aykyo to Gura several times in indirect ways. However, Jiyoung ends up revealing her vulnerability by crying in front of cameras in Line 14 after Gura’s aggressive, rude and persistent asking in panmal and yelling. In this interaction, Jiyoung is a young girl who is bullied by a malicious male host rather than a professional singer. Her unexpected reaction ‘crying’ to Gura’s impoliteness actually created controversy among TV viewers after the episode was broadcasted. Some of TV viewers blamed Gura’s aggressive and rude behaviors treating his guest, and Jiyoung also receives enormous public criticism on her non-professional reaction (crying) on TV. The leader of the girl-group Kara that Jiyoung was a member of eventually gave a public apology for Jiyoung’s non-professional behavior ‘crying’ on TV (KH news 2013; the Asia Business Daily 2013). Jiyoung’s unexpected reaction ‘crying’ obviously marked Gura’s behavior as rude and impolite but also marked her behavior quite negatively to TV viewers. 3.3.2 Gura and Singer Dong-uk Verbal irony and sarcasm is one of the common linguistic strategies that is used for criticizing and insulting the hearer. In the next excerpt, Gura attacks the guest Dong- 52 uk with ironic/sarcastic utterances. As most sarcastic/ironic utterances have the opposite negative interpretation from the positive literal meaning on surface, Gura’s comments towards Dong-uk appear as complimentary remarks, but what Gura is doing in context with those utterances is insulting and making a mockery of Dong-uk. Gura’s critical and insulting statements towards celebrity guests at the show ‘Radio Star’ are usually based on gossip, rumor and negative opinions from the public on the celebrity guests, which are commonly found on the Internet message boards and are posted by anonymous commenters. They are usually not discussed on TV programs because of their inappropriate contents. What Gura does differently from other TV show hosts is to bring up the issues on his TV show and attack his guests directly. The guest Dong-uk reacts calmly and coolly to Gura’s sarcastic insulting at the beginning but expresses his embarrassment and anger by Gura’s utterances at the end. It is interesting that Gura uses panmal to Dong-uk in this excerpt not as an impolite strategy but as a mitigating device to soothe Dong-uk’s anger. [Excerpt 2] 1 Gura: ceki paykhwacem iss-canha-yo. DM department.store exist-you.know-POL ‘Well, you know department stores.’ 2 Dong-uk: e, paykhwacem? (surprised and embarrassed smile) DM department.store ‘Uh, department store?’ 3 Gura: ku VIP khonsethu-uy hwangcey-i-pnita. that VIP concert-POSS emperor-COP-DEF ‘(Dong-uk is) a king of department store concerts for VIP customers.’ 4 wuli emma-ka emcheng cohahay-yo. my mom-NOM very.much like-POL ‘My mom likes (Dong-uk) very much.’ 5 wuli emma-ka ** paykhwacem cacwu kan-untey, my mom-NOM ** department.store oftern go-CIRCUM ‘My mom often goes to the ** department store,’ 6 Kim.tongwuk-ssi chingchan-ul nemwu ha-y. Dong-uk-Mr. compliment-ACC too.much do-IE ‘(My mom) compliments Dong-uk a lot.’ 53 7 wuli emma 70-i nem-ess-ketun-yo. my mom 70-NOM over-PST-surely-POL ‘My mom is over 70 (years old).’ 8 Dong-uk: cey-ka ka-se nolayha-l swu iss-nun tey-nun I.HBL-NOM go-CONN sing-RL way exist-RL place-TOP 9 ku cali pakkey eps-nun ke katha-yo. that place only no.exist-RL thing be.like-POL ‘I think that (a department store) is the only place I can go and sing.’ (…) 10 Yun: ce-to 1-nyen-ey yele pen ha-ketun-yo. (another host) I-also one-year-per several times do-surely-POL ‘I also do (the department concert) several times. 11 Gura: keki ccapccalha-canha-yo. there salty-you.kow-POL ‘You know there (the department concerts) brings in a good income.’ 12 Yun: (to Gura) kwaynchanh-a, kwaynchanh-a. ok/good-IE ok/good-IE ‘(the income) is good, (the income) is good.’ 13 (to Dong-uk) han-sikan, han-sikan-i-canha-yo. one-hour one-hour-COP-you.know-POL ‘(the concert length) is one hour, you know.’ 14 Dong-uk: ce-nun han sikan pan ha-l ttay-to iss-cy-o. 1.HBL-TOP one hour half do-RL time-also exist-COM-POL ‘I sometimes do (the concert) for one and a half hours.’ 15 Kim (another host): paykhwacem-eyse sa-ney, sal-a. department.store-LOC live-FR love-IE ‘(Don-uk) lives in the department store.’ 16 Dong-uk: ce paykhwacem-man hanun ke ani-ey-yo. 1.HBL department.store-only do-RL thing NEG-COP-POL ‘It’s not like I only do department store concerts.’ 17 Gura : ani, nayka… kukey… no I-NOM that-NOM ‘No, I (mean)…, that is…’ 18 al-ci, al-ci, nay-ka. know-COM know-COM I-NOM ‘I know. I know’ 54 19 kuke-l way kulehkey iyakiha-y? that-ACC why like.that say-IE.Q ‘Why do you say like that?’ 20 paykhwacem-ey hwullio ikulleysiasu-yey-yo. department.store-POSS Julio Iglesias-COP-POL ‘(You) are the department store’s ‘Julio Iglesias’.’ 21 choyko-uy chansa aniya? best-POSS compliment NEG-COP-IE.Q ‘Isn’t the best compliment?’ 22 Dong-uk: acik 30tay-i-ntey, yet 30’s-be-CIRCUM 23 way hwulli.ikulleysiasu-lako ha-sey-yo? why Julio.Iglesias-COMP do-HON-POL.Q ‘(I’m) still in my 30’s, (but) why (do you) say that (I’m like) Julio Iglesias?’ 24 Gura: ani, nukkim-i… no feeling-NOM ‘No, (what I mean), the feeling is (similar to Julio Iglesias)…’ 25 a, coh-umyense mwe-l kulay. eyi~ EX like-SIM what-ACC to.do.so EX ‘Ah, (I know you) like it. What’s the matter? Come on~’ ============================================================== 1 Gura: 저기 백화점 있잖아요. 2 Dong-uk: 어, 백화점? (surprised and embarrassed smile) 3 Gura: (동욱씨가) 그 VIP 콘서트의 황제입니다. 4 우리 엄마가 엄청 좋아해요. 5 우리 엄마가 ** 백화점 자주 가는데 6 김동욱씨 칭찬을 너무해. 7 우리 엄마 70 이 넘었거든요. 8 Dong-uk: 제가 가서 노래할 수 있는 데는 9 그 자리 밖에 없는 거 같아요. (…) 10 Yun: 저도 1 년에 (백화점 콘서트를) 여러 번 하거든요. 11 Gura: 거기 짭짤하잖아요. 12 Jongsin: (to Gura) (돈이) 괜찮아, 괜찮아. 13 (to Dong-uk) (공연시간이) 한시간, 한 시간이잖아요. 14 Dong-uk: 저는 한 시간 반 할 때도 있죠. 55 15 Kim: 백화점에서 사네, 살아. 16 Dong-uk: 저 (공연) 백화점만 하는거 아니에요. 17 Gura : 아니, 내가… 그게… 18 알지. 알지, 내가. 19 그걸 왜 그렇게 이야기 해. 20 (동욱 씨는) 백화점에 훌리오 이글레시아스예요. 21 최고의 찬사 아니야. 22 Dong-uk: 아직 (저) 30 대인데, 23 왜 훌리오 이글레시아스라고 하세요. 24 Gura: 아니, 느낌이. 25 아, 좋으면서 뭘 그래. 에이~ In Excerpt 2, Gura suddenly mentions a department store to the guest Dong-uk in Line 1. Dong-uk panics and wonders what Gura is trying to say when he suddenly brings up the topic ‘a department store’ in Line 2. Gura says that Dong-uk is the king of concerts for VIP customers of department stores in Line 3. Then, Gura continues that his mother, who is 70 years old, is a regular customer of the department store and she is a big fan of Dong-uk in Line 4-7. The literal meaning of Gura’s utterances in Line 3-6 is a compliment. However, most VIP customers of department stores in Korea are middle- aged women. By mentioning his mother's age in Line 7, Gura is implying that Dong-uk appeals to old women that are often VIP members of a department store. The singer Dong-uk is in his 30s and probably wants to hear that he appeals to girls rather than ‘moms’. It is clear that Gura is being sarcastic to criticize his appearance that appeals to old women. Gura’s body gestures are also indicated as rude when he makes sarcastic comments towards Dong-uk. Gura points at Dong-uk with his chin and his index finger (Fig 3.6). In Korean culture, pointing at a person with one’s chin or index finger is considered rude and insincere. They are intrusive and offensive body gestures (De Gagne et al. 2016). 56 Fig 3.6 Gura is pointing at Dong-uk with his chin and index finger when he insults Dong- uk with sarcastic comments. Dong-uk stays quite calm and cool when Gura is insulting him, and accepts Gura’s criticism in a modest way by saying, ‘I think VIP concerts at department stores are the only places that I can sing’ in Line 8-9. Dong-uk is, in fact, a well-known singer with prominent performances featuring outstanding vocals throughout various musical genres such as pop, jazz, musicals, and even classical operas. He also often performs on major broadcasting TV shows. Even though it is not true that department store concerts are the only places where Dong-uk sings, he tries to be generous and shows that he is not offended and is enjoying Gura’s hostile and sarcastic humor targeting him. It seems that Dong-uk chooses to be modest and humble as a strategy of playing along with Gura’s face attacks for his positive public image. However, his body gestures indicate that he is embarrassed and uncomfortable with Gura’s sarcasm. He gives an embarrassed smile and rubs his left eyebrow with his index finger (Fig 3.7). Self-touching usually appears when there is underlying negative emotion such as anxiety, discomfort and conflict (Harrigan et al., 1986). Fig 3.7 Dong-uk is embarrassed-smiling and rubbing his left eyebrow for Gura’s sarcasm. 57 Gura continues insulting Dong-uk this time by mentioning the money he makes from the VIP concerts at the department stores. Gura says keki ccapccalhacanhayo ‘you make good money there (the VIP concert of a department store)’ in Line 11. The adjective ccapccalha- used in this utterance literally means ‘(pleasantly) salty’ and it is a vulgar expression for ‘a good income’. Gura insults Dong-uk, who is a musician, not only by directly mentioning the money that he makes from his performance but also by using a vulgar expression for the money. What Gura implies in his utterance is that Dong-uk sings at the department store for money, which can be insulting to musicians. When other hosts, Yun and Kim, also add more jokes about the department store concert in Line 12- 15, Dong-uk finally becomes serious and says ‘It’s not like I only sing at the department store’ in Line 16. In this utterance, he clearly expresses his displeasure with the continuous jokes about the department store concert. His body gesture and facial expression also indicates that he is offended by the hosts. He looks down for a while and then looks at Gura with a serious face (Fig 3.8). He is not smiling at all and his lip corners are pulled down, which indicates sadness and anger (Savran et al., 2008). Fig 3.8 Dong-uk is speaking to Gura with a serious face. Gura is surprised with Dong-uk’s sudden serious reaction to him and seems to be lost for words in Line 17 as ‘No, I ah…, that was…’ and tries to pacify Dong-uk’s anger and soften him in Line 18 by saying ‘Of course, I know. I know (that the department store VIP concert is not the only place you sing)’. Gura, who was using the polite speech style towards Dong-uk so far, suddenly switches to panmal in Line 18 when he realizes that Dong-uk is upset and offended by his sarcastic comments. Gura then says towards 58 everybody in studio, ‘Dong-uk is Julio Iglesias7 of department stores’ in polite speech style. Then, Gura switches back to panmal for Dong-uk and says ‘Isn’t the highest praise (that I call you ‘Julio Iglesias)?’. However, it also offends Dong-uk because he says ‘Why do you call me ‘Julio Iglesias’? I’m in my 30s’ in Line 22-23. Gura then says in panmal, ‘I know you like it (the compliment that I gave you). Come on~’ in Line 25. Gura’s sudden use of panmal towards Dong-uk has a clear purpose in this interaction. To pacify Dong-uk’s anger, Gura is trying to make his previous sarcastic insults interpreted as humorous, playful, and unharmful banter (i.e. mock impoliteness) by showing intimacy using panmal. Banter is different from ironic and sarcastic insults because it is impolite on the surface but in fact does not carry any intention of offence. Banter is almost always expected only in the particular context which involves interactions between friends. It is used to mark emotional closeness and intimacy, to achieve an entertaining atmosphere, and to promote social solidarity (Junhua and Xinren, 2010; Meier, 1995; Furman, 2011; Culpeper, 1996). Therefore, Gura needs to show a sign of intimacy to make Dong-uk perceive Gura’s sarcasm as banter. Unlike the use of panmal as an impoliteness strategy towards Jiyoung in the previous example, panmal in Excerpt 2 is used as a sign of intimacy and a mitigating tool to ease the tension from his impolite behaviors. Gura is also quite careful with his body gesture. Instead of using his chin and index finger, Gura points Dong-uk with an outstretched hand with his palm facing upward and makes a big smile with raised eyebrows on his face (Fig 3.9), which is a polite way to point a person in Korea (Brown and Prieto, 2017). Gura is avoiding offending Dong-uk with a careful and polite body gesture. 7 Julio Iglesias is a famous Spanish singer and songwriter. He was born in 1943. Iglesias is recognized as the most commercially successful Continental European singer in the world and one of the top ten record sellers in music history, having sold more than 250 million records worldwide in 14 languages. (Julio Igleisias official website: https://www.julioiglesias.com/pagina.php?cs_id_pagina=5&cs_id_idioma=1) 59 Fig 3.9 Gura is pointing at Dong-uk with an outstretched hand and his palm is open- facing upward. a. Gura’s identities The public easily leaves impolite and offensive comments about celebrities on the Internet because of anonymity, and there is usually no mitigating of the level of impoliteness and offensiveness towards celebrities from the public. Therefore, the contents and the level of roughness of the internet comments from the public are usually not allowed for Korean public television. In Excerpt 2, Gura acts as if he is a spokesperson of the public by delivering Dong-uk what people say about him. It is a wildly-known negative gossip in the internet about Dong-uk that he looks much older than his actual age and, therefore, appeals more to old women than young girls. Gura is attacking Dong-uk’s face by giving him straightforward and outspoken negative comments which Dong-uk may not have expected to hear in person on TV shows. Gura plays the role of spokesperson by asking about the gossip on the Internet directly to his guest. Gura usually retains the offensive level of the tone from the internet comments. By doing this, Gura creates proximity and familiarity with viewers and also differentiates his show ‘Radio Star’ from other talk shows which are polite to guests. The natural reactions of celebrities when Gura mentions their gossip from the internet often entertain the viewers of ‘Radio Star’. However, Gura negotiates his identity when Dong-uk explicitly expresses how offended he is by Gura’s sarcastic insults. Gura switches his identity to an intimate friend of Dong-uk suddenly by using panmal towards him, and tries to make his previous sarcastic insults perceived as banter/mock-impoliteness which is only possible when he has an intimate relationship with Dong-uk. Gura acts as if he is a close friend of Dong-uk 60 by using panmal and the discourse marker such as ‘come on’ to appeal to Dong-uk that his sarcasm was all playful banter between friends without any intention of offence. b. Dong-uk’s identities Dong-uk in Excerpt 2 neither denies nor contradicts Gura’s sarcastic insults. Rather he admits and accepts Gura’s criticism even though it is not true. Dong-uk even lowers himself more by saying that the department store is the only place he can sing in Line 8-9. Dong-uk represents himself as a humble and modest man by accepting Gura’s quite insulting comments and as a cool guy who can enjoy Gura’s sarcastic jokes even by lowering himself on TV. Humility is one of images that celebrities often want to appeal to the public. The public tends to love not only strong personalities or characters but also human virtues such as humility from celebrities (Collins, 2001). Until then, Dong-uk does not seem to be genuinely offended. Rather he is using unintentionally or semi- intentionally the impolite incident as a chance to appeal his humility to the TV viewers. However, when Gura continues insulting Dong-uk with comments not only about the VIP concerts of department stores but also about money he makes from them, Dong-uk shifts and changes his identity to a vulnerable, defensive, and serious man and expresses how offended he is by Gura’s sarcastic insults. His identity shifting in this interaction has a purpose to stop Gura from insulting him on TV and to prevent possible TV viewers from taking Gura’s comments as a fact. 3.3.3 Gura and Opera singer Sumi Direct comments about sex or any sexual statements including raunchy jokes have been strictly taboo and one of major targets for censorship in the public broadcast programs as well as sex or the sexual scenes in Korea. It is because of Confucianism deeply rooted in Korean society through history, which sees sexuality as taboo and forbids talking about sex. Korean society under the influence of Confucianism has more strongly forbidden females than males from talking about sex and avoiding sexual talks with women has been considered as a polite manner (Shim, 2001). The next excerpt is excerpted from the interview between Gura and the opera singer Sumi. It shows how a sexual comment is used to attack face of a female guest. The 61 conversation starts right after one of the male guests Jio proudly bragged about the hair on his chest as his sexy physical characteristic. Because of its biological rareness in Korea, male’s chest hair often becomes an issue to talk about as a sign of virility and a sex symbol. [Excerpt 3] 1 Kim: ithayli-ey-nun thel-i iss-nun namca-pwun-tul-i manh-cy-o? Italy-LOC-TOP hair-NOM have-RL man-HON-PL-NOM many-COM-POL.Q ‘(Unlike Korea) There are many hairy men in Italy, right?’ 2 Sumi: kuleh-keyss-cy-o? kuleh-tako-tul ha-tay-yo. be.like-ASS-COM-POL.Q be.like-COM-PL do-COM-POL ‘There must be, right? (Other people) say there are. 3 Gura: kayincek-ulo kasum-ey thel na-n pwun-tul-ul personal-as chest-LOC hair have-RL person.HON-PL-ACC 4 pyello an cohaha-sey-yo? not.much NEG like-HON-POL.Q ‘Don’t you like men with chest hair personally?’ 5 Sumi: ce-yo? kulssey-yo. (scratching her head) 1.HBL-POL.Q not.sure-POL ‘Me? Well…’ 6 a, ile-n ke-n… EK such-RL that-TOP 7 ettehkey yaykihay-ya tway? (looking at another guest Dong-uk) how tell-NEC become-IE.Q ‘Ah, this kind of (question)… How should I answer? 8 Dong-uk: way ce-hanthey kule-sey-yo? why 1.HBL-to do.so-HON-POL.Q ‘Why do you (ask that) to me? ============================================================= 1 Kim: (한국과 달리) 이태리에는 털이 있는 남자분들이 많죠? 62 2 Sumi: 그렇겠죠? (다른 사람들이) 그렇다고들 하대요. 3 Gura: 개인적으로 가슴에 털 난 (남자)분들을 4 별로 안 좋아하세요? 5 Sumi: 저요? 글쎄요. 6 아, 이런 건… 7 어떻게 얘기해야 돼? 8 Dong-uk: 왜 저한테 그러세요? Sumi is a Grammy award winning soprano who is rarely seen in Korean TV entertainment shows and her appearance on ‘Radio Star’, which is notorious for its informal, impolite and wicked questions to guests, became an issue. The next Figure 3.10 shows how uncomfortable Sumi is through her body gestures when Jio is bragging about his chest hair. In Fig 3.10, Sumi is looking away (i.e. gaze aversion) while all others are looking at Jio who is talking. She is also making a smile. Those body and facial expressions exhibit her shyness and embarrassment towards the sexual issue (Reddy, 2001; Colonnesi et al., 2013; Poole and Schmidt, 2019). Fig 3.10 Sumi is looking away (i.e. gaze aversion) and making a smile when Jio (the rightmost person) is bragging about his chest hair. Another guest Dong-uk (in the middle) is looking at Jio. Then, one of hosts Kim continues the topic ‘chest hair’ with Sumi by asking if there are many hairy guys in Italy unlike in Korea in Line 1. Sumi avoids a direct answer by saying ‘I suppose there are.’ in Line 2 and quickly adds ‘People say there are’ in indirect speech style as if she does not have any direct experience acquiring the 63 knowledge about hairy Italian males. Sumi indirectly expresses her embarrassment and avoidance of ‘sexual talk’ in Line 2. The reason that she avoids a direct answer for the question is that a direct answer such as ‘yes’ can make her sound that she has many sexual experiences with Italian guys. When Sumi tries not to answer directly in Line 2, Gura notices it and asks her again more directly this time as ‘Don’t you personally like guys with chest hair?’ in Line 3. She expresses her surprise with his direct sexual question by saying ‘(are you asking) Me?’ in Line 4 and tries to avoid a direct answer one more time by saying ‘Well, I’m not sure’. Sumi also scratches her head with her right hand and avoids eye contact with Gura who is asking a question to her (Fig 3.11). Self-touching such as scratching head indicates negative emotions such as anxiety, discomfort or conflict (Dittman, 1972; Ekman and Friesen, 1972, 1974). It also occurs when an individual experiences conflict in the language construction process such as choosing words and expressions (Freedman, 1977; Freedman, Barroso, Bucci & Grand, 1978). Fig 3.11 Sumi scratches her head and avoids eye contact with Gura. She then suddenly asks help to one of guests Dong-uk who is sitting right next to her for how to answer in Line 5 saying ‘For these kinds of (sexual) questions, how should I answer?’ (Fig 3.12). Also she sighs as ‘Ah’ in Line 5 expressing her trouble with the sexual direct question how to response to it. For Sumi’s sudden asking, Dong-uk seems to feel awkward and says in Line 6 ‘Why do you ask that to me?’ as if it is absurd that Sumi asks help to him for that kind of sexual question. Sumi looks down with a 64 shy/embarrassed smile with touching her hair (Fig 3.13). Gura laughs out loud for her reactions to his question as if it is quite funny and entertaining in Fig 3.14. Fig 3.12 Sumi is asking help to Dong-uk for how to answer Gura’s question. Fig 3.13 Sumi gives embarrassed/shy smile with touching her hair. Fig 3.14 Gura is laughing out loud after seeing Sumi’s reactions. 65 a. Gura’s identity When Sumi tries to avoid a direct answer for the sexual question about her experience with Italian hairy guys, Gura notices it and askes the same question in a more direct way so that she cannot avoid answering. In this context, Gura’s question is more close to teasing rather than a pure question. He does not seem to mind teasing a female guest with aggressive and sensitive sexual comments and even laughs out loud at her when she is being embarrassed by his sexual question. In this situation, Gura reveals his identity as a powerful male interviewer who teases a female guest. It is not limited only to Korean that males tease females more than females tease males with sexual jokes (Harris, 1992; Keltner, Capps, Kring, Young, & Heerey, 2001; Li & Zhu, 2008). It is explained by power difference between two genders and often happens on TV shows between a male host and a female guest. In the context of ‘Radio Star’, Gura takes a superior position as a host and also as a male with other three male hosts (Ohara and Saft, 2003). Therefore, he teases the only female guest Sumi related to sex even though she is a world-famous opera singer and ignores how inappropriate it is that a male teases female about sexual topics. b. Sumi’s identities Korean culture has been male-dominated and male-centered based on the ethics of Confucianism which is deeply and widely rooted in Korean society and culture. For example, in Confucianism, male sexuality is superior to female sexuality and, therefore, females should obey men in their entire life as their duties: a daughter should obey her father, a wife should obey her husband, and an old woman should obey her son after her husband dies (i.e. ‘the three life ethics for women’ from Confucianism). Moreover, in sexual culture, women should remain virgins until marriage and sexually faithful after marriage and the dichotomic judgement between ‘bad girl’ and ‘good girl’ is applied to females, which means that women who are associated with any sexual issues are simply denounced as ‘bad girls’. Those ethics have shaped ideological female identities in Korea as subordinate, passive, and obedient (Shin, 1993; Shim, 1996; Lee, 2002; Francoeur et al., 2004). 66 In Excerpt 3, Sumi positions herself as a passive and shy Korean female to sexual teasing. She does not hide her embarrassment about the host’s unexpected sexual question and tries to avoid giving any direct response to it to be a ‘good girl’. This identity she claims corresponds to the traditional Korean sexual norm and ideology discussed above about how females are ‘supposed’ to behave about sexuality. Korean females are not allowed to be curious or to talk about sexuality openly. Females who do not mind talking sexuality in public are easily presumed to have an irresponsible and promiscuous sex life. In her first response in Line 2, it is important to note that Sumi uses the third- person indirect speech style: people say that there are many (hairy men in Italy). Even though Gura asks more specifically if she herself likes hairy men, she re-confirms if he is asking the question to her as “me?” in Line 4. Indexicality is one of crucial keys showing that identity is shaped and constructed in linguistic interaction with linguistic forms (See Bucholtz and Hall (2005): the indexicality principle). By avoiding using the first-person pronouns in the sexual context, Sumi is emphasizing the image of a passive female to viewers. In this interaction, it is hard to see the identities of Sumi as a classical music diva living with fame, fortune, and admiration that the audience used to see on TV and rather she appeals her identity as a passive and shy female who is trying to avoid sex talks with male hosts and remains as ‘good girl’ to TV audience. 3.4 General Discussion The current study aimed at examining how identity emerges in linguistic interaction especially where linguistically aggressive and impolite phenomenon occurs. This study focused on the specific genre ‘TV talk show’ to observe the unscripted natural conversation and reaction under the genre-specific situation: impoliteness used for the entertaining purpose. The examples for discourse analysis were excerpted from the interviews between the show host Gura, who is notorious for his impolite and aggressive interview style, and his celebrity guests. In this chapter, the discourse analysis of the TV talk show shows that identity is an outcome of linguistic interaction and it is discursively constructed, shifted, and negotiated (Bucholtz and Hall, 2005) in interaction in which linguistically aggressive 67 phenomena such as impoliteness is found. The analysis especially highlights that multiple identities are discursively performed and achieved by co-participants not only who attacks other’s faces but also by those whose face is attacked through multiple levels simultaneously and dynamically. For example, Gura displays multiple identities at the TV show ‘Radio Star’. He claims or reveals various identities such as a malicious and cruel interviewer, an elder/senior, a spokesperson of the public, a powerful male interviewer and an intimate friend when he interacts with his celebrity guests. It is interesting to note that Gura’s identities that emerge when he is being impolite are not confined to only negative identities. Impoliteness is usually seen as a negative identity practice (Bucholtz, 1999), but it seems more complicated depending on context. The current study shows that various identities not only negative but also positive may be claimed by practicing impoliteness. The celebrity guests also display various identities when their faces are attacked by Gura on the public TV camera. They show identities as a young & vulnerable victim, a cool and generous person, a humble and modest man, a defensive and serious man and a passive and shy female guest in their interactions with Gura. Some of identities that celebrity guests claim such as a cool, generous, humble or modest person seem to be quite strategic and deliberate in the situation ‘Radio Star’ where Gura’s face threat is naturally expected and where they need to consider the TV audience. It is important to notice their identities shift, change and are negotiated from time to time as a conversation proceeds: Gura shifts his identity from an impolite/rude/aggressive interviewer to a conventional polite interviewer or even an intimate friend of the guest when his guest expresses how offended s/he is in a serious and defensive way. The current study also provides strong evidence that both identity and impoliteness is a linguistic phenomenon (Bucholtz and Hall, 2005) which is constructed with various linguistic devices (honorifics, panmal, humble register, verbal irony/sarcasm, sexual or negative comments or switching of the speech styles etc.) in linguistic interaction. Among various linguistic features discussed in this study, it is quite interesting that panmal (the informal speech style) that Gura produces is not only used as an impolite strategy (to Jiyoung) but also as a device to ease tension caused from his aggressive face attack and to mitigate or diminish the level of aggression (to Dong-uk). 68 Those findings support that no utterance is inherently polite or impolite (Fraser & Nolan, 1981) and also explain empirically that impoliteness judgement or interpretation is highly context-dependent. Another example for this arguments is that Gura uses overly exaggerated compliments towards his celebrity guests, which would certainly be not marked in other contexts. However, those excessively polite expressions are marked in the context of ‘Radio Star’ as inappropriate and impolite behavior and also as certainly intended sarcasm. This example supports again that the judgement of impoliteness and politeness is highly context dependent and therefore, analyzing discourse in context is crucial. The current chapter also illustrates with empirical discourse data that impoliteness and identity are relational concepts that are constantly renegotiated and exercised in interactions rather than a static concept (Locher and Watts, 2005). Therefore, whether any social behavior is marked and unmarked is also highly context-dependent. For example, Gura’s behavior is marked more negatively by guest’s reactions (e.g. Jiyoung’s crying) and Gura constantly negotiates his identity and adjusts the degree of impoliteness rather than keeps performing as an aggressive and rude host all throughout the show. Lastly, the current study clearly illustrates how impoliteness is inextricably connected to identity construction with empirical discourse evidence. One of major communicative roles of impoliteness which has been found in the current study is that impoliteness plays as linguistic index (Blitvich, 2009) because face attack always entails identity construction, shift, and negotiation between co-participants. The current study has also addressed that impoliteness plays as interactional recourse (Dobs, 2014; Donaghue, 2018) for identity construction because it triggers or causes conflict of identities that participants want to claim or negotiate in interaction. Considering these functions of impoliteness have been found related to just one of aspects, identity construction, in human social practices in this study, it seems reasonable to infer that the nature of impoliteness is much more complicated than the simple definitions proposed by traditional or even recent studies of impoliteness based on theoretical framework (i.e. top- to-bottom/second order approach) such as face-threatening acts (Brown and Levinson, 1987), the absence of politeness work (Culpeper, 1996), purposefully produced face- threatening utterances (from the notion of intention: Culpeper, 2005, 2008; Culpeper et 69 al., 2003; Bousfield, 2007, 2010), or un-conventionalized expressions relative to the context (Terkourafi, 2005, 2008). 3.5 Conclusion To understand the relationship between impoliteness and identity construction in linguistic interaction, I have examined the specific genre: the TV talk show discourse. The current study has provided meaningful empirical evidences that both impoliteness and identity construction are important discursive phenomena closely related to each other in linguistic interaction. They carry on the conversation as an interaction resource and also emerge within it. The findings from the discursive approach considering the context and the co-participants have shown that impoliteness is much more complicated phenomenon in discourse and inextricably connected to identity construction. The current study suggests with several pieces of empirical discourse evidence that the definition of impoliteness in previous research such as ‘face attack’ and ‘face threat’ is a quite limited definition to cover what it does in actual social interactions, especially related to identity. They need to be re-defined but must be supported with empirical discourse data. The current study has also added a meaningful layer to Korean impoliteness and identity research. Most research studying Korean language focus on politeness than impoliteness, and they mainly discuss only grammatical forms such as Korean honorifics or speech styles without supporting empirical data. The analysis in current study has clearly shown how important it is to take the social context into account for understanding impoliteness, and it needs to be understood as judgements by co-participants in interactions. Additionally, it addresses that more various social interaction genres need to be studied as empirical discourse evidence. Even though the current study chose the genre of TV talk show as discourse data, the important third factor ‘the audience’ (Bell, 1984; Blitvich, 2009) in this genre has not been discussed enough for analysis. The participants including Gura are celebrities who care about how they are viewed to the audience. They want to be likable, popular, and also recognized. Even though the first interaction occurs in the individual level between the celebrity guest and the show host Gura, the identities they claim in front of TV can hardly be free from the audience and they are inevitably related to the public images they 70 want to claim to the audience. Therefore, studies on television discourse or film discourse as a polylogue model of communication could benefit from future investigation to help understand the connection between impoliteness and identity in the case of mediated interactions. 71 CHAPTER IV STUDY 2: IMPOLITENESS AND POWER 4.1 Introduction “Power is relational, dynamic and contestable” (Locher, 2004: 39) “…impoliteness is an exercise of power as it has arguably always in some way an effect on one’s addressees in that it alters the future action-environment of one’s interlocutors.” (Locher and Bousfield, 2008: 8) As a follow-on to the previous chapter on the relationship between impoliteness and identity construction, the current chapter investigates how impoliteness is connected to the exercise of power in political discourse. It is important to examine impoliteness in various discourse types to obtain a deeper insight into the impoliteness phenomenon as a human linguistic behavior. Following the notion of relational work which is defined as the work people invested in negotiating their relationships in interaction (Locher and Watts, 2005), the current study will present an analysis of political discourse between the South Korean Minister of National Defense and the opposite party members of the National Assembly members during the National Assembly Hearings and illustrate how individuals’ interpretations of inappropriate social behavior are inevitably connected with the exercise of power. As Locher and Bousfield (2008:8) state that “there is and can be no interaction without power”, the issue of power plays a crucial role in interaction. According to Locher and Watts (2008), all interlocutors get involved in social interaction with a certain level of understanding about the social status of co-participants, but the exercise of power itself is only witnessed in interaction. Power in interaction is dynamic, negotiable, and context-dependent rather than hierarchical-rigid and static. 72 In political debates or interviews which are usually conflictual and confrontational, there are always the discursive struggles of power: “who takes the floor, who controls, who chooses, who defines what is good or bad (language) behaviour?” (Wodak, 1989: 14). There is noticeably increased aggressiveness with face attacks and those face attacks affect one’s interlocutor’s action environment (Locher and Bousfield, 2008; Locher and Watts, 2008) such as interruption or threats which restrict one’s freedom of action to question or answer. As a public figure, the interlocutor in the defensive position tries to minimize an accompanying face loss by giving immediate open evaluations how impolite and rude the other’s behaviors are. This is especially true in front of the television audience. There are certainly institutional sanctions against excessive impoliteness but they usually work in favor of the interviewers who take a position that they ask questions on behalf of the public interests (i.e. our audiences have a right to know). However, impoliteness and the exercise of power actually occur much more dynamically not only by the interviewer but also by the interviewee in political discourse, as is what the current study wish to demonstrate with data here. As discussed briefly in the literature review, power was dealt as one of static factors with D (distance) and R (ranking of imposition) and used as a predictor based on the assumption that politeness strategies will be used less by a more powerful person, as opposed to a less powerful person in the traditional politeness model proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987). This traditional model was criticized for its lack of empirical evidence and for ignoring the dynamic discursive nature of power in interaction. Research in postmodern (e.g. Harris, 2001; Mills, 2005; Watts, 2003; Locher and Watts, 2005) sees power as a dynamic social dimension that is constantly negotiated and conducts various empirical studies especially with political discourse: political broadcast interviews (Mullany, 2002; Locher and Watts, 2008), presidential debates (Locher, 2004; Jaworski and Galasinski, 2000), and other electoral debates (Agha, 1997). However, still most studies on the issue of impoliteness and power with political discourse are conducted based on the context of English. Impoliteness studies on Korean political discourse remained unnoticed, marginalized and unexplored. 73 The current study, to fill the gap, collected Korean political discourse between the Minister of National Defense and the opposition party members from the National Assembly at the National Assembly’s hearings that occurred in May, 2010 in Seoul, South Korea. The hearing was held for the tragic event: the sinking of the Cheonan, a South Korean Navy ship, which killed 43 Navy soldiers. This specific political discourse is chosen as data for the current study because of its special nature involving naturally occurring political discourse produced by Korean politicians who are closely related to the issue of power. Specifically in the particular political circumstance of Korea with on- going ideological conflicts as a divided nation, it shows the dynamic power exercise between Korean politicians breaking the norm of appropriateness that the audience generally expects at the political hearings. This discourse, compared to the TV talk show in Chapter 3, provides a different discursive environment which is formal, political, careful and serious. However, impoliteness still plays a significant role intimately related to the exercise of power. In this chapter, I will discuss what kinds of linguistic impoliteness strategies are used by Korean politicians, how they react to those face attacks, and how they try to frame each other’s behavior as breaches of norms in front of TV cameras. To interpret participants’ immediate reactions and evaluations of the interlocutor’s behavior, the study pays close attention to verbal comments made by participants and also to visual signals such as facial and bodily expressions revealing negative evaluations. 4.2 Data with its background The data used for the current study was extracted from the National Assembly’s hearing held in May, 2010 in Seoul, South Korea to investigate the tragic event, the sinking of the South Korean Navy ship Cheonan. The current study selected this particular political discourse for analysis because it contains linguistically aggressive behaviors damaging the face of interactants who have political power and demonstrates how they exert and negotiate their power in interaction. Before proceeding with the analysis, it is important to know the socio-historical background information of the event. 74 4.2.1 The Cheonan sinking The South Korean Navy ship Cheonan sank on March 26, 2010. The warship broke in two after there was an explosion near the rear of the ship and sank in the west coast near the sea border dividing South Korea from North Korea. The ship had a crew of 104 men at the time of sinking and a total of 46 crew among them died. An investigation was led by South Korea with an international team of military experts and concluded that the warship had been sunk by a North Korean torpedo attack. However, North Korea immediately denied that it was responsible for the sinking. As a result of the report blaming North Korea, South Korea cut almost all trade with North Korea and prohibited North Korean vessels from using South Korean shipping channels in the west coast border area. After the report from South Korea, a team of Russian experts visited South Korea and conducted an assessment of the report produced by South Korea in May. The Russian team concluded that the Cheonan was not sunk by a North Korean torpedo, but did not come to any firm conclusion about the cause of sinking. The United Nations (UN) released a statement in July condemning the incident which led to 46 deaths, but also did not blame North Korea. Numerous theories and rumors emerged by various agencies and there were domestic debates, controversy and suspicion on the investigation led by the Lee government. South Korean people were also angry at the failure of South Korean military forces for not preventing the Cheonan sinking (BBC 2015; Hankyoreh 2010; New York Times 2010; YTN news 2010). 4.2.2 The Minister of National Defense, TK At the time of the Cheonan sinking, the South Korean Minister of National Defense was Taeyoung Kim (hereafter referred to as TK). With the public image as a man of integrity and uprightness, TK became the Minister of National Defense in 2009 in the administration of President Lee Myung-bak. Before attending at the National Assembly’s hearing as a witness for the Cheonan sinking, TK met the families of the crew who lost their lives in March, 2010 and saw their anger and sorrow with his own eyes (Fig 4.1). TK also publicly apologized in April, 2010 for the military’s poor and inept handling of the Cheonan sinking (Fig 4.2). 75 Fig 4.1 TK is meeting the outraged families of missing sailors on March 28th, 2010. (Source: the Ohmy news) Fig 4.2 TK is bowing his head to the public in apology of the military’s poor and inept handling of the Cheonan sinking on April 16th, 2010. (Source: the Ohmy news) However, his arrogant and insincere attitude at the National Assembly’s hearing aroused great public indignation, and finally TK stepped down from his post on November 25th, 2010 amid strong criticism after the sinking of Cheonan. 4.2.3 The physical set-up of the hearing The physical set-up of the hearing is, as shown in Fig 4.3 and Fig 4.4, that the opposition party members and the ruling party members of the National Assembly sit on the right and left sides of TK in the U-shape table. The chairman of the National Assembly’s judiciary committee sits in the middle of the U-shape table, between the two party members and right across from TK. 76 Fig 4.3 The seating for the National Assembly’s hearing (Source: the Yonhap News) Fig 4.4 The hall for the National Assembly’s hearing (Source: the Seoul News) 77 The camera shows both the witness (TK) and the interviewer (the committee member of the National Assembly’s hearing) at the same time in one screen or switches from one participant to the other. 4.3 Analysis and discussion At the hearing, TK is attacked by the opposition members for his responsibility as the Minister of National Defense and for the Nation’s Defense System that TK is responsible for. Even though TK is aware of the public anger towards him and the needs of expressing his regret with modesty for such tragedy at the hearing, he is also in the position that he needs to defend the government and himself from the blame of the Navy ship Cheonan’s sinking. The South Korean Minister of National Defense, which is a top official in command of the military power, has been a symbolic position for an absolute executive power and authority under the special political situation as a divided nation technically still at war (Martinez, 2005). TK exerts the power and authority with various verbal and non-verbal facial-aggravation strategies to damage the National Assembly members and to save his face in the following examples. The important sections of the sequence in examples are highlighted in grey. 4.3.1 Interruption and power The following extract, taken from the hearing, is one in which we can clearly see the deployment of interruption by the National Assembly Member (hereafter NA1) for the purposes of exercising her power to restrict the target’s freedom of speaking and at the same time to re-assert the institutional power hierarchy (Yule, 1996; Locher and Watts, 2008; Hutchby, 2008) in the setting of the National Assembly Hearing. Interruption is also used by TK to retain his power and authority in power negotiation and to save his face to the public. It is important to observe how the two interactants react to the face attack and how they frame each other as violating norms to appeal to the television audience. 78 [Excerpt 1] 1 NA1: tayanghan poko-ka iss-ess-nuntey, various report-NOM exist-PST-CIRCUM ‘There were various reports (about the Chonan sinking)’ 2 ikes-i nwulak-tway-ss-ta-nun kes-ul a-n sicem-i this-NOM miss-PAS-PST-DEC-RL thing-ACC know-PST.RL time-NOM ‘The time you knew that the first report had been missing’ 3 samwel 29-il, sawel 4-il March 29-day April 4-day ‘(between) March 29th (and) April 4th,’ 4 ikes-i macnu-nya-nun cilmwun-i-ketun-yo. this-NOM correct-NMZ-RL question-COP-you.know-POL ‘It’s a question which one is correct, you know.’ 5 TK: ey… cey-ka pol-ttay-nun nwulak-toy-n kes-i… ah 1.HBL-NOM see-time-TOP miss-PAS-RL thing-NOM ‘Ah, in my view, the missing thing (report) is…’ 6 NA1: kulenikka tappyen-ul haycwu-sipsi-yo. kulenikka. so.then response-ACC do.for-DEF-HON-POL so.then ‘So then please response (about the missing report).’ 7 TK: yey. yey. tappyen-ul tuli-l-key-yo. yes yes response-ACC give.HBL-RL-CONJ-POL ‘Yes, yes. I’ll response (to your question).’ 8 cey-ka po-l ttay-ey-nun, 1.HBL-NOM see-RL time-LOC-TOP ‘In my view,’ 9 nwulak-tway-ss-ta-konun sayngkakha-ci anh-koyo, miss-PAS-PST-DEC-COM think-COM NEG-and ‘I don’t think (the first report) was missed.’ 10 yelekaci uykyen-i kathi ollawa-ss-nuntey, several opinion-NOM together com.up-PST-CIRCUM ‘Several opinions (reports) were reported together’ 11 kuleh-an kes-ul ce-to kyeysok hwakinha-yss-supni-ta. such-RL thing-ACC 1.HBL-also continuously check-PST-DEF-DEC ‘I continuously checked up such reports.’ 12 waynyahamyen ike cikum myenghwakha-n… because this now obvious-RL ‘Because now it is obvious that…’ 79 13 NA1: aniyo, eccaysstun, eccaysstun no-POL anyway anyway ‘No (it’s not the answer for my question). Anyway, anyway…’ 14 cangkwan-nim-i kwukhoy-ey nao-sye-se minister-HON-NOM national.assembly-LOC come-HON-COM 15 tappyenha-n kutongan-uy kilok-ul ccwuk po-myen-unyo, response-RL so.far-POSS record-ACC all see-CON-POL ‘When (I) look at all records of your responses, you gave so far at the National Assembly hearings…’ 16 TK: yey yes ‘Yes’ 17 NA1 cangkwan-nim-i hewi tappyenha-si-n ke-llo toy-ketun-yo. minister-HON-NOM false response-HON-RL thing-as become-CIRCUM-POL ‘Your answers are considered false.’ 18 cikum kuleh-cy-o? now be.like-COM-POL.Q ‘Aren’t they, now?’ 19 TA: yey yes ‘Yes’ 20 NA1: ney, ku taum-ey … yes that next-POSS ‘Yes, then the next…’ 21 TA: cey-ka po-ki-ey-n, 1.HBL-NOM see-NMZ-LOC-TOP ‘In my opinion,’ 22 kukes-ul hewi tappyen-i-lako phyoyenha-si-myen, that-ACC false response-COP-as express-HON-COND 23 ce-nun cekcel-chi anh-ta-ko sayngkakha-pni-ta. 1.HBL-TOP appropriate-NOM no-DEC-COM think-DEF-DEC ‘I don’t think it is appropriate if you say that (my answer) is false.’ ================================================================== 1 NA 1: (천안함 사건에 대해서) 다양한 보고가 있었는데, 2 이것(최초 보고)이 누락됐다는 것을 안 시점이 80 3 3 월 29 일, 4 월 4 일 4 이것이 맞느냐는 질문이거든요. 5 TK: 에… 제가 볼때에는 누락된 것이… 6 NA1: 그러니까 답변을 해주십시오. 그러니까. 7 TK: 예예 답변을 드릴게요. 8 제가 볼 때에는 9 누락됐다고는 생각하지 않고요, 10 여러가지 의견이 같이 올라왔는데, 11 그러한 것을 저도 계속 확인했습니다. 12 왜냐하면 이거 지금 명확한… 13 NA1: 아니요, 어쨌든, 어쨌든… 14 장관님이 국회에 나오셔서 15 답변한 그동안의 기록을 쭉 보면은요, 16 TK: 예. 17 NA1: 장관님이 허위답변하신 걸로 되거든요. 18 지금 그렇죠? 19 TA: 예. 20 NA1: 네, 그 다음에… 21 TA: 제가 보기엔 22 그것을 허위답변이라고 표연하시면, 23 저는 적절치 않다고 생각합니다. In Excerpt 1, NA1 paraphrases her question for TK in Line 1-4 because she thinks TK is not giving a clear answer to her question. The question concerns when the exact date was that TK was first aware that one of reports (about the Cheonan) was missing between March 29 and April 4. TK tries to answer her question in Line 5 but as soon as he starts talking he is stopped by NA1’s interruption in Line 6. In Line 6, NA1 unnecessarily emphasizes again that TK needs to answer clearly even though TK is trying to answer. When TK finally answers to the question in Line 7-12, NA1 interrupts again and stops TK from continuing his answer in Line 13. By being interrupted a second time, TK furrows his eyebrows and narrows his eyes (Figure 4.5). His facial expressions depicted show that TK is being annoyed by NA1’s interruption as he cannot believe that 81 he is interrupted again. TK’s facial expressions can be interpreted as anger or irritation (Fabri, Moore and Hobbs 2002; Jabson, Venkatraman and Dishion 2003). Figure 4.5 TK is reacting to NA1’s second interruption. After interrupting TK’s speaking, NA1 accuses TK of lying by saying that TK has been giving false answers in the National Assembly according to the record in Line 13-15 and Line 17-18. While listening to NA1, TK says yey ‘yes’ in Line 16 and 19 not as a confirmation of NA1’s accusation but as a filler meaning that he is listening. However, NA1 takes his ‘yes’ in Line 19 as his admission even though it is unclear if she did deliberately or genuinely misunderstood it, and tries to move on to her next question in Line 20. This time NA1 is stopped by TK’s interruption. By interrupting NA1 in Line 21, TK urgently and strongly denies her accusation against him of giving false answers to the Assembly members. When TK interrupts NA1 in Line 21, he points upward with his right index finger, raises his eyebrows and tilts his head slightly toward the left side (Figure 4.6). The gesture of pointing with the index finger, when it points upward instead of at a specific somebody, is related to authority and dominance (Pease and Pease, 2008). Also his raised eyebrows and tilted head show that TK is thinking in different ways from NA1 and questioning NA1’s accusation as he believes it is not true (Liu et al., 2012). 82 Figure 4.6 TK is interrupting NA1’s speaking The interruptions made by TK and NA1 can be interpreted as the exercise of power. To understand the interruptions in the context of the hearing in aspects of power, we can compare the context of hearings with a context of a press conference. When we imagine a politician in a press conference with media reporters or at a hearing as a witness, the politician’s job at both situations is the same as answering questions. However, a politician in a press conference usually has a great power over the reporters. Reporters try to be picked by the politician to have a chance to ask a question. The politician controls who will ask a question and how the politician will deal with the question (e.g. the politician can give a long or short answer or ignore the question). At the hearing, however, the power potentially goes to the committee members of the National Assembly. They control the process of questioning and receiving answers from witnesses. The power distribution between the two parties at the hearing may become overtly asymmetric especially when the politician is called as a witness over the event blamed by the public. In Excerpt 1, NA1 seems to give TK the floor but immediately forces him to stop speaking by interruption. NA1 exercises her power to restrict TK’s freedom of speaking. At the second interruption by NA1 (Line 13), TK tries to appeal with his facial expressions to the public that NA1’s continuous interrupting is not appropriate and her behavior is impolite. The face-aggressive second interruption (i.e. the repetition of interruption) of NA1 which forces a response from TK seems quite intentional as a way to exert her power to restrict TK’s action environment and to damage the public face of TK. By doing so, NA1 emphasizes the related power she has as a 83 member of the National Assembly in the nature of the environment (the hearing) and limits TK’s freedom to response. To counteract NA1’s face attacking, TK also interrupts with strong gestures and asserts her accusation is not true. TK’s interruption can be interpreted as a tool to retain his power and authority in the unfavorable situation and to save his face to the public. 4.3.2 Expressing disinterest and power In Excerpt 2 and Excerpt 3, TK explicitly expresses his ‘being disinterested’ and ‘being dismissive’ to members (NA2 and NA3) instead of defending himself in a sincere way against the accusations and blames he receives from the committee members. Expressing disinterest or lack of concern is one of the impoliteness strategies that TK uses as a face threatening act towards the members and those expressions give the messages such as ‘I do not care’ or ‘whatever’ to the interlocutor and the audience. This ignoring or neglecting expressions can be perceived as a more offensive or humiliating face-threatening act than denying in the setting of the hearing. [Excerpt 2] 1 NA 2: cangkwan-kkeyse-nun i ssawum-i phaycen-iko minister-HON-TOP this battle-NOM lost.battle-COM 2 susulo phaycang-ilako kyucengha-si-nun ke-pni-kka? self defeated.general-as define-HON-RL thing-DEF-Q ‘Are you stating that it was a lost battle and you were a defeated general?’ 3 TK: wuli-ka wanpyekhakey pangeha-ci mos-ha-n ke-ey tayhayse we-NOM perfectly defense-NOM NEG-do-PST.RL thing-LOC about ‘About that we could not perfectly defend (our country from North Korea)’ 4 silphay-ey tayhayse-nun cey-ka inceng-ul ha-nun kes-ipni-ta. fail-LOC about-TOP 1.HBL-NOM admit-ACC do-RL thing-DEF-DEC ‘I admit that (the military) failed (to defend).’ 5 NA 2: kulenikka phaycen-i-ko phaycang-i-lako so lost.battle-COP-and defeated.general-COP-as 6 kyuceng-ul ha-si-nun ke-cy-o? state-ACC do-HON-RL thing-COM-POL.Q 84 ‘So you’re stating that it was a lost battle and you were a defeated general, aren’t you?’ 7 TK: mwe, kkok kulehkey malssum-ul ha-ko siphu-si-ta-myen, mwe really so saying.HON-ACC do-and want-HON-DEC-CONJ 8 ha-si-cy-o. do-HON-COM-POL ‘Well, if you really want to put it that way, just do it’ ======================================================== 1 NA 2: 장관께서는 이 싸움이 패전이고 2 스스로 패장이라고 규정하시는 겁니까? 3 TK: 우리가 완벽하게 방어하지 못한 거에 대해서, 4 실패에 대해서는 제가 인정을 하는 것입니다. 5 NA 2: 그러니까 패전이고 패장이라고 6 규정을 하시는거죠? 7 TK: 뭐, 꼭 그렇게 말씀을 하고 싶으시다면, 8 하시죠. In Excerpt 2, TK is being attacked by NA2 by asking TK to admit that the Cheonan sinking was a lost battle and TK is a defeated general. TK defends himself in Line 3 and 4 by saying that he only admits they (the military) failed to completely defend themselves against the attack from North Korea. In this response TK points out that it is different from ‘a lost battle’ and tries to avoid stating himself that the Cheonan sinking was a lost battle. As his response shows, TK is vehemently denying what NA2 argues. However, NA2 ignores what TK has tried to point out in his response and says what TK is saying in his response has no difference with admitting ‘a lost battle’ and ‘a defeated general’ from NA2’s original accusation. It is revealed in Line 5 as NA2 says kulenikka ‘so/therefore’ at the beginning of his question. He is basically saying to TK in Line 5-6 ‘So you admit that it was a lost battle and you’re a defeated general, right?’. NA2 also switches the ending to -cyo/-ciyo ‘right?’ (similar to a tag question in English) in Line 6 from –(sup)nikka? (a neutral interrogative ending) in Line 2 to seek assurance and confirmation from TK (Lee, 1999). When TK sees that NA2 sticks to what he thinks no 85 matter how TK responds, TK changes his attitude from being highly concerned and trying to explain actively to defend himself (Line 3-4) to being dismissive about the opponent’s accusation (Line 7-8). TK says ‘if you really want to put it that way (a lost battle and a defeated general), just do it’ in Line 7-8. In this utterance, TK is pointing out that the person who wants to label the Cheonan sinking as a lost battle is not TK but NA2. TK’s dismissive expressions toward a member of the National Assembly are observed again in another response in Excerpt 3. In Excerpt 3, NA1 strongly berates the incompetence of TK as the Minister of National Defense and the Navy. [Excerpt 3] 1 NA 1: haykwun-un, palo cwachoha-n ku mith-ey ttelecye-iss-nun navy-TOP right shipwreck-RL that below-LOC fall-exist-RL 2 kasuthepin-to mos chacnun kulen haykwun-i gas.turbine-also NEG find-RL such navy-NOM ‘Such Navy that cannot even find the gas turbine right below the sunken ship,’ 3 cikum wuli nala-lul cikhi-ko iss-supni-kka? now our country-ACC protect- exist-DEF-Q ‘Are (they) protecting our country now?’ 4 kulen haykwun-ul mit-ko wuli-ka ettehkey sal-keyss-supni-kka, cikum! such navy-ACC trust-and we-NOM how live- SJV-DEF-Q now ‘How can we live trusting such an unreliable Navy, now?’ 5 TK: kulem mwe mitci anhu-si-nun swu pakkey eps-keyss-supni-ta. then mwe trust NEG-HON-RL way only not.exist-ASS-DEF-DEC ‘Then (if you cannot trust the Navy), you may have no choice but to not trust the Navy’ 6 al-keyss-supni-ta. know-DEF-DEC ‘I see.’ =============================================================== 1 NA 1: 해군은, 바로 좌초한 그 밑에 떨어져있는 2 가스터빈도 못 찾는 그런 해군이 3 지금 우리 나라를 지키고 있습니까? 4 그런 해군을 믿고 우리가 어떻게 살겠습니까, 지금! 86 5 TK: 그럼 뭐 믿지 않으시는 수 밖에 없겠습니다. 6 알겠습니다. In Excerpt 3, NA1 criticizes the entire Navy for not being able to find a gas turbine right under the sunken ship Cheonan. In Line 4, NA1 emphasizes the Navy’s inabilities: ‘How can we live trusting such an unreliable navy, now?’. Thereby, she speaks as if the whole audience watching the hearing on TV is on her side through the pronoun wuli ‘we’. For NA1’s criticism, TK answers in Line 5: ‘Then (if you cannot trust the Navy), you have no choice but to not trust the Navy’. Instead of defending the Navy or convincing NA1 that the Navy is still trustworthy, TK ignores NA1 in Line 5 by basically saying to her ‘think whatever you want’ or ‘I do not care if you trust the Navy or not’. Then, TK adds the statement ‘I see (that you do not trust us)’ at the end to attack NA1 adversely using her own comment that she has no faith on the Navy. We also need to focus on the filler mwe observed in TK’s utterances in both Excerpt 2 and 3 as a boosting device of impoliteness. As shown in the examples (Line 6 of Excerpt 2, Line 6 of Excerpt 3), the filler mwe does not function as any syntactic or grammatical role in the utterance/sentence but serves a discourse function as a discourse marker conveying a speaker’s attitude and stance especially in naturally occurring conversation. One of the core functions of the discourse marker mwe discussed in literature is signaling a speaker's discontent with or rebuttal of an interlocutor's utterance (Chung, 2006; Jung, 2005). The Korean dictionary by the National Institute of the Korean Language also defines the filler mwe as the discourse marker used toward friends or younger (or subordinate) people to express the speaker’s opposite position or negative stance. There is a noticeable occurrence of mwe in TK’s utterances implicitly showing TK’s dismissive attitude toward the members of the National Assembly. In both Excerpt 2 and Excerpt 3, the discourse marker mwe is being associated with TK’s ‘whatever- attitude’ statements: ‘if you want to put it that way (a lost battle and a defeated general), just do it’ (Line 6 in Excerpt 2) and ‘then (if you cannot trust the Navy), you have no choice but to not trust the Navy’ (Line 5 in Excerpt 3). TK adds mwe at the beginning of those sentences before he proceeds to make dismissive comments as a response to the 87 National Assembly members. The discourse marker mwe boosts TK’s disrespectful and insincere tone toward them by generating synergy with his ‘whatever-attitude’ message. To interpret TK’s linguistic reactions to the assembly members in terms of power and control, we need to consider again the norms of appropriate behavior that is expected from the witness/interviewee at the televised hearings of the National Assembly. By ignoring NA1 explicitly with dismissive expressions, TK re-asserts his power as the Minister of National Defense and challenges NA1 over her instrumental power. The facial expressions of NA1 shown in Figure 4.7 and 4.8 demonstrate that NA1 thinks it is preposterous, absurd and quite impolite based on the norm of appropriateness in the hearing that TK responds in such dismissive and arrogant attitude toward members of the National Assembly. Especially in Fig 4.8, NA1 turns her head from TK and looks at the chairman of the hearing. It seems as if she implicitly complains about TK’s impolite attitude to the chairman and asks for the chairman’s agreement on her judgement on TK’s behavior. TK actually was warned by the chairman for his insincere responding attitude several times during the hearing. Figure 4.7 NA1 is looking at TK when he gives ‘whatever’ utterance. 88 Figure 4.8 NA1 is looking at the chairman sitting across from TK. Even allowing for some degree of defense mode that most witnesses/interviewees naturally take at the hearing, TK’s explicit insincere responses with the dismissive attitude toward the members of the National Assembly are quite shocking and powerful. The dismissive expression of TK at the National Assembly’s hearing towards the members highlights TK’s image as arrogant, rude and insincere (See Fig 4.9), and following a public outrage against TK’s insincere attitude at the hearing, the then-Prime Minister, Jung Hunchan, had to apologize for TK publicly on June 14, 2010 (CBS News, 2010). Fig 4.9. Media headlines criticizing TK’s arrogant and insincere attitude at the hearing 89 4.3.3 Sarcastic comments and power In the next examples, TK uses sarcasm as his impoliteness strategy to attack the members of the National Assembly. An interesting finding from his uses of sarcasm is that TK explicitly uses the honorifics in a much exaggerated way whenever he makes a sarcastic comment. The honorifics, humble words and exaggerated compliments, which are totally unnecessary, are used as another boost device to maximize the effect of his sarcasm. [Excerpt 4] 1 NA3: ta ttwul-ko, all pass-and 2 camswuceng-i konghaysang-ey mosen-ey Submarine-NOM international water-LOC mother ship-LOC 3 tochakha-l swu issnun hwaklyul-un 0.81% -i-pnita. arrive-RL way exist-RL probability-TOP 0.81%-COP-DEF ‘The chance that the North Korean submarine could pass all (South Korean defense lines) and reach our mother ship in international water is 0.81%.’ 4 TK: nao-ci anh-nun kyeysan-ul cikum mandu-si-n come.out-COM NET-RL calculation-ACC now make-HON-RL 5 Pak Sun-sook uywen-nim-i Pak Sun-sook member-HON-NOM 6 taytanhi hwullyungha-si-n kyeysan-ul ha-si-ess-nun-tey, amazingly excellent-HON-RL calculation-ACC do-HON-PST-CIRCOM ‘Member Pak Sun-sook who just made up a non-sense (impossible) calculation made a very excellent calculation, but...’ 7 NA3: Ani kuke-nun… no it-TOP ‘No, it is…’ 8 TK: Ohilye cehuy-ka Pak Sun-sook uywen-nim-uy rather we (HBL)-NOM Pak Sun-sook (NA3) member-HON-POSS 9 thakwelhan kyeysan pangpep-ul excellent calculation method-ACC 10 han swu paywu-essu-myen coh-keyss-supnita. one skill learn-SJV-COND good-SJV-DEF 90 ‘Rather, we (soldiers) wish we could learn the excellent calculation skill from you, Member Pak.’ ======================================================== 1 NA3: (남한 방어선을) 다 뚫고 2 (북한) 잠수정이 공해상에 모선에 3 도착할 수 있는 확률은 0.81%입니다. 4 TK: 나오지 않는 계산을 지금 만드신 5 박선숙 의원님이 6 대단히 훌륭하신 계산을 하셨는데, 7 NA3: 아니 그거는… 8 TK: 오히려 저희가 박선숙 의원님의 9 탁월한 계산 방법을 10 한 수 배웠으면 좋겠습니다. In Excerpt 4, another member NA3 attacks TK by mentioning that the possibility that a North Korean submarine could pass all Korean defense lines and reach the South Korean ship is 0.81% in Line 1-3. She is pointing out that the statistically-impossible accident actually had happened and eventually blames how ineffective and powerless the South Korean defense system was. TK immediately criticizes NA3’s argument in Line 4 by saying that her 0.81% probability is from a rubbish and nonsense calculation: naoci anh-nun kyeysan ‘calculation which is impossible’. After his direct criticism on NA3’s calculation as nonsense and impossible, TK makes a completely opposite comment: Pak Sun-sook uywen-nim-i taytan-hi hwullyungha-si-n kyeysan-ul ha-si-ess-nun-tey ‘Member Park (NA3) made an amazing and excellent calculation’ in Line 4-6. Those exaggerated expressions, ‘amazing’ and ‘excellent’, make TK’s utterance negatively marked and as a result, it sounds insincere, sarcastic and impolite. Also TK’s repetitive use of the honorific suffix –si towards NA3, three times in one sentence in Line 4- 6, also boosts the effect of his sarcastic comment towards NA3. Especially the use of the honorific suffix – si for hwullyungha ‘excellent’ in Line 6 is clearly superfluous and also intentional. It is because it is literally applied to the calculation that she just made (i.e. the case of over- using the honorific –si to a non-human object) rather than to NA3 herself who made the calculation. 91 NA3 understands TK’s being sarcastic on her argument and tries to say her calculation is not nonsense and unreasonable in Line 6. However, TK cuts in on her utterance (so NA3 actually cannot finish her sentence in Line 7) and makes another sarcastic comment that the Navy should learn her nonsense calculation in Line 8-10. In this comment, TK uses the praising expression for her calculation as thakwelhan ‘excellent’ again and lowers the Navy and himself by using the humble word cehuy ‘we’. The humble pronoun referring to the Navy and TK himself and the honorific words toward the National Assembly member maximize the degree of aggression that TK’s explicit sarcasm conveys. The expression han su ‘one skill’ in Line 10 also indicates that TK is being sarcastic. The expression han su ‘one skill’ is used for a trick or non- official/non-professional skill. By using the words han su, TK is actually making fun of the calculation that NA3 made and is criticizing how non-professional the calculation is. In this example, TK is using sarcasm for the purpose of re-asserting his power. TK’s utterances demonstrate his power from the position of absolute authority as Minister of the National Defense who has military expertise. This authority gives him power to make a mockery of NA3’s argument as a non-professional calculation and damage her public face. By re-emphasizing who he is, TK challenges and limits the member’s power to ask TK questions at the hearings. TK’s negative attitude toward NA3’s argument about the 0.81% probability is clearly observed in his body gestures and facial expressions. As shown in Figure 4.10, when TK listens to NA3 in Line 1-3, TK’s facial expression says he is unhappy, angry, and he disagrees with what NA3 is claiming. TK is looking at NA3 from the corner of his eyes instead of looking at her straight by turning his face or his upper body toward NA3. This non-direct bodily orientation towards interlocutor indicates superior and impolite (Mehrabian, 1971; Burgoon and Saine, 1978; Brown and Winter, 2019). As for his mouth expressions, his lower lip is pouted and his mouth corners are lowered. His head is also tilted toward his right shoulder. These facial and body expressions reveal that he is unhappy and angry (Buss & Kiel, 2004), and also he is unsure, questioning or disagreeing what NA3 is saying (Ito & Watanabe, 2016). The way he is listening to and looking at NA3 is negative and impolite. 92 Figure 4.10 TK is listening to NA3’s argument about the 0.81 % probability. [Excerpt 5] 1 NA4: kuleh-tamyen cengcenhyepceng-sang like.that-COND ceasefire.agreement-based.on 2 kamsi-wa sichal-ul hangha-l kwenhan-un observation-and inspection-ACC conduct-RL authority-TOP 3 emyenhi iss-nun kes ani-pni-kka? pwuk-chuk swusekwiwen-eykey clearly exist-RL thing NEG-DEF-Q north-side chief.member-to ‘If that (what the ceasefire agreement says) is so, doesn’t the North’s committee have authority to conduct investigation based on the ceasefire agreement?’ 4 cangkwan-nim etteh-supni-kka? Minister-HON how-DEF-Q ‘Minister, what do you think about that?’ 5 TK: conkyengha-nun uywen-nim, respect-RL assembly.member-HON ‘My honorable member’ 6 mwe, peplicek-ulo malssum-ul ha-si-nuntey mwe juridical-as speak(HON)-ACC do-HON-CIRCUM 7 sansikcek-ulo sayngkak-ul com ha-si-l philyo-ka iss-ul-ke-pni-ta. common.sense-as think-ACC little do-HON-RL need-NOM exit-RL-thing-DEF-DEC ‘You are talking from jurisprudential thinking, but you need to think in common sense.’ 8 pwukhan-i cikum ettehkey po-myenun North.Korea-NOM now how see-CIRCUM 93 9 i motun kahayca-i-pni-ta. this all attacker-COP-DEF-DEC ‘In a sense, the North is the attacker for this incident.’ 10 saken-ul iluki-n kahayca-i-ntey, Accident-ACC cause-RL attacker-COP-CIRCUM ‘Even though they are the attacker of the accident’ 11 kahayca-hako kathi, kathi, wuli kathi attacker-with together together we together ‘With the attacker together’ 12 ike-l hanpen cosa-lul haypo-nun-key etteh-keyss-nya this-ACC one.time investigation-ACC try-RL-thing how-CONJ-Q 13 kulen malssum-ul ha-si-lye-nun-ke ani-keyss-supni-kka? such word (HON)-ACC do-HON-INF-RL-thing NEG-CONJ-DEF-Q ‘Are you trying to say that we need to investigate it (with the attackers)?’ 14 mwe, Pwukhan-ul cenghwakhakey, mwe North.Korea-ACC precisely 15 pwukhan-ul cal incenghay-cwu-si-nun kes-ey tayhayse North.Korea-ACC well recognize-give-HON-RL thing-to in.matters.of 16 mwe, coh-un phantan-i-lako sangkakha-pni-ta. mwe good-RL judgement-COP-COMP think-DEF-DEC ‘I think it is a very good judgment that you recognize and authorize the North side well and precisely.’ 17 al-keyss-supni-ta. cal hasiko… know-CONJ-DEF-DEC well do-HON-CONN ‘I see. Keep doing a good job.’ ===================================================== 1 NA4: 그렇다면 정전협정상 2 감시와 시찰을 행할 권한은 3 엄연히 있는 것 아닙니까, 북측 수석위원에게. 4 장관님, 어떻습니까? 5 TK: 예, 존경하는 의원님 6 뭐, 그, 법리적으로 말씀을 하시는데 94 7 상식적으로 생각을 좀 하실 필요가 있을 겁니다. 8 북한이 지금 어떻게 보면 9 이 모든 (일의) 가해자입니다. 10 사건을 일으킨 가해자인데, 11 ‘가해자하고 같이, 같이, 우리 같이 12 이걸 한 번 조사를 해보는게 어떻겠냐’ 13 그런 말씀을 하시려는거 아니겠습니까? 14 뭐 북한을 정확하게, 15 그렇게 잘 인정해 주시는 것에 대해서 16 뭐, 좋은 판단이라고 생각합니다. 17 알겠습니다. 잘 하시고… In Excerpt 5, another National Assembly Member NA4 claims that the South needs to accept the North’s request to include them in the investigation based on the ceasefire agreement between two countries in Line 1-4. To respond to her question, TK again starts with addressing NA4 as ‘honorable Member’ which can be equivalent to ‘your honor’ or ‘right honorable’ in English. This somewhat exaggerated formal and polite way of addressing the member is commonly observed in TK’s sarcastic utterances. This quite unnecessary polite addressing is only interpreted as sarcastic because it is unexpected in this confrontational context. It is also clear when it is immediately followed by such negative comment sansikcek-ulo sayngkak-ul com ha-si-l philyo-ka i- ss-ul kepnita ‘you need to use common sense for it’ in Line 7 which is completely opposite to the literal meaning of conkyeng-ha-nun ‘honorable’. TK directly criticizes that NA4’s idea of ‘joint investigation with the North’ is nonsense. Then TK clearly specifies North Korea as the attacker in Line 9-10 by repeating the word kahayca ‘attacker’ twice. After emphasizing that North Korea is the attacker, TK re-confirms NA4’s ‘joint investigation’ suggestion in Line 11-12: kahayca-hako kathi, kathi, wuli kathi i-kel cosa-lul hayponunkey ettehkeyss-nya kulen malssum-ul hasillyenun-ke anikeyss-supni-kka? ‘Are you trying to say that we need to investigate it with the attacker?’. In this utterance, TK repeats kathi ‘together’ three times as if he cannot believe NA4’s idea ‘joint investigation with the attacker’. TK even adds the first plural pronoun wuli ‘we’ to his last kathi ‘together’ in Line 11 in a sarcastic way to 95 criticize NA4’s idea as antinational as if NA4 considers North Korea, the enemy of South Korea, and herself as ‘we’. TK continues his sarcastic comments in Line 14-16: ‘I think it is a very good judgment that you recognize and authorize the North side very well and precisely’. Then TK says alkeysssupnita. cal hasiko ‘I see. Keep doing a good job’ in Line 17. His comment ‘I see’ implies that TK has learned and would remember that NA4 is talking for the North and that NA4 is antinational and unpatriotic. As the Minister of National Defense, his comment ‘I see’ in this example is quite powerful and intimidating. His being sarcastic toward NA4 is clearer with literal positive expressions such as cohun phantan ‘good judgement’ and cal hasiko ‘good job’. In Excerpt 5, TK uses sarcasm for re-emphasizing his absolute power and authority as the Minister of National Defense and achieves two goals in the success of impoliteness. One is to damage NA4’s face by accusing her of being a radical leftist who is on the side of North Korea. The other is to save his face by indirectly emphasizing his allegiance and loyalty to his country as the Minister of National Defense. TK’s powerful and confident attitude is also clearly seen in his body gestures and facial expressions observed when he makes sarcastic comments. In Screenshot 4.11, TK’s head and his body is toward NA4 and looking at her straightly. He is pointing at NA4 with his right hand with his palm opened. His chin is also lifted towards NA4. TK’s overall body gestures are making his body look bigger (Carney, Hall & LeBeau, 2005). With his sarcastic utterance, TK does not seem to be afraid to be explicitly sarcastic toward NA4 and shows how confident he is with his stance. Figure 4.11 TK is saying ‘what an excellent judgement’ to NA4. 96 4.4 General discussion Much of the previous research on impoliteness has focused on short utterances produced by an individual speaker in ordinary situations. Furthermore, power has been treated as background information to define the relationship between participants rather than a dynamic variable which may constantly affect on-going interaction. With this limitation in early studies, a considerable amount of recent studies (Lakoff, 1989; Harris, 2001; Locher and Watts, 2005; Culpeper, 2008; Bousfield, 2008; Locher and Bousfield, 2008; Mills, 2011 etc.) beyond any notion of research on impoliteness emphasize the needs of empirical research to extend linguistic impoliteness theories to various discourse types especially from certain professional and institutional contexts where a certain expectation exists among participants. This chapter has provided fruitful contextual evidence which shows how closely the impolite linguistic behaviors are related to the exercise and negotiation of power by examining on-going interactions at the National Assembly’s hearing between the Minister of National Defense and the opposition party committee members. The National Assembly’s hearing held to investigate the tragic event, the sinking of Cheonan, was a political event not only which drew the public and the media’s great attention but also which gave NAs an opportunity to openly criticize problems with the government. Therefore, NAs’ questions during the hearing were focused on highlighting the inefficiency and the ineptitude of the military and the government in handling the situation. TK’s responses, meanwhile, were focused not only to save his face which was under threat on major national TV networks but also to defend the government against the NAs’ attacks. Considering the ways that ordinary National Assembly’s hearings often are based on history and shared experience, it is obviously surprising that TK counterattacks NAs quite actively. TK performed various face-threatening acts even under the relatively disadvantageous circumstances that he was being blamed and denounced by public and restricted in his role to answering NAs’ questions as a witness at the hearing. First of all, the current study shows various types of impolite linguistic strategies performed by TK and NAs. Interruption is one of the impolite strategies used by both TK and NAs and they exercise their power through interruption to restrict each other’s 97 freedom of speaking and to re-assert and negotiate their power in debate. TK also used utterances showing his ‘being disinterested’ and ‘being dismissive’ to NAs’ questions. Ignoring or neglecting expressions can be perceived as a more offensive or humiliating face-threatening act towards NAs than denying or defending TK himself sincerely against accusations or blames he receives. By ignoring NAs boldly with dismissive expressions, TK re-asserts his power as the Minister of National Defense and implicitly challenges NAs over their instrumental power at the National Assembly’s hearing. It is also an interesting finding in this study that the filler mwe, which noticeably occurred at the beginning of TK’s dismissive comments, is used as a boost device of impoliteness showing TK’s opposite, negative, disrespectful and insincere stance towards NAs. The data also showed that TK uses sarcasm, which is negatively marked as ‘over-polite’ (Watts, 2005), as his impoliteness strategy to attack NAs, and the honorifics and humble words are used as a boost device to maximize the effect of insincerity in his sarcasm. TK used sarcasm for re-emphasizing his absolute power and authority as the Minister of National Defense and for damaging NAs’ faces. As discussed in the previous chapters, TK’s impolite behaviors were seen as quite rude, arrogant and inappropriate to the public and aroused great public indignation. The current study has shown how closely our interpretation of impolite social behavior is connected to the exercise of power in political discourse with empirical evidence. It should be noted at this point that the exercise of power is not necessarily related only to impoliteness. We might also gain or exercise power through politeness as Bousfield (2008) states that: … there is and can be no interaction – linguistic or otherwise – without power being an issue. (Bousfield, 2008:129) However, what the current study argues is that the successful use of impoliteness causing offense is crucial and inevitable to the exercise of one’s power in political discourse and it plays a significant role to affect other interlocutor’s environment. The verbal elements such as interruption, sarcasm, and a dismissive discourse marker are all used as powerful linguistic devices to exercise power. Therefore, when one is successfully impolite, it 98 means that they must be exerting, negotiating, or re-asserting their power over their interlocutor in interaction. 4.5 Conclusion The current study has important implications for impoliteness research. First, it has shown that impoliteness is closely linked to the exercise of power. Impoliteness is bound up not only with individual’s identity construction (Study 1) but also with the exercise and negotiation of power. This study also shows how important empirical evidence is, especially naturally occurring discourse data showing the complexities of human linguistic social interactions in real life. This study carefully suggests that what we understand about the impoliteness phenomenon is just a little part of what it is or what it does in various interactions and social practices. Especially for power and its interrelationship with the phenomenon of impoliteness, we need strong and solid empirical evidence to support the arguments. We need to examine more various institutional discourse types across all levels of social interactions in which impoliteness has been found to play a significant role. The current study has showed how Korean politicians perform aggressive and abusive linguistic behavior towards each other at the hearings and it has broadened the scope of institutional discourse types that previous impoliteness studies discussed. It has provided rich and solid empirical evidence for how impoliteness is connected to the exercise of power in Korean political discourse, which had rarely been discussed in previous research. This is especially important since Korean impoliteness studies as well as politeness studies have narrowly focused on lexical or grammatical strategies in a single sentence without much discussion of its context. A cross-cultural comparison of political discourse regarding power and its relationship with impoliteness and studies on other types of political discourse such as TV interviews, press conferences or presidential debates are important areas for further research. 99 CHAPTER V STUDY 3: L2 KOREAN LEARNER’S PERCEPTION OF IMPOLITENESS IN PUBLIC POLYLOGAL DISCOURSE 5.1 Introduction The development of second language (L2) learners’ pragmatic and sociolinguistic knowledge has attracted many scholars in the field of second language acquisition (SLA) since pragmatic competence was recognized as one of the crucial elements for communicative competence (Leech, 1983; Thomas, 1984; Bachman, 1990). Many studies have highlighted the importance of raising L2 learners’ pragmatic awareness and developing their ability to use appropriate language that can function in a given situation. It is highlighted because its failing may cause L2 learners not only to be misunderstood in communication but also to be misjudged as rude, offensive and worse. Despite this, the need for L2 instruction focusing on pragmatic competence and pragmatic awareness is often neglected in the L2 classroom (Kasper, 1997). The focus of most previous studies is also limited to the L2 learners’ performance of certain speech acts to maintain harmony with interlocutors (Koike, 1989; Bardovi‐Harlig, Kathleen and Zoltán Dörnyei, 1998). Even for the face-threatening speech acts such as refusals (Beebe & Cummings, 1985; Takahashi & Beebe, 1986), disagreements (LoCastro, 1986; Pomerantz, 1984), complaints (Bonikowska, 1985; Olshtain and Weinbach, 1985) and disapproval (D’Amico-Reisner, 1983), the major focus is how to perform those speech acts politely to minimize the L2 learners’ risks of offending their interlocutors and to avoid any violation of pragmatic and sociolinguistic rules in their performance of the speech act. Compared to the large amount of literature on L2 learners’ performance of polite speech acts, the literature on L2 learners’ perception and awareness of impoliteness lags far behind and only a limited number of researchers have looked into the context of L2 Korean for the study of L2 learners’ perception of impoliteness. The present study investigates the variation between North American L2 Korean learners and Korean native speakers in the perception of impoliteness in Korean authentic contexts through the use of impoliteness events from the previous Study 1 (the TV talk 100 show) and Study 2 (the National Assembly hearing). To examine any possible differences or similarities in the perceptions between native speakers and non-native speakers, three factors are carefully taken into consideration which may influence the perceptions of impoliteness: cross-cultural, cross-linguistic, and cross-modal (i.e. non-verbal) factors. By considering the three aspects in analysis, the current study discusses how native and non-native speakers differ in perceiving impolite behaviors and what kinds of factors may affect their perceptions. In addition to the comparison between native and non-native speakers, this study also considers L2 learners’ proficiency by arranging two different learner groups: novice and an advanced learners. One of widely-accepted challenges for developing L2 pragmatic competence is that L2 learners do not necessarily acquire pragmatic competence along with their improvement of grammatical proficiency. It means that even advanced learners with high grammatical proficiency may use L2 inappropriately and encounter pragmatic failure in communication (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Koike, 1989; Boxer and Pickering, 1995; Bouton, 1996; Kasper, 1997). However, there are not many studies supporting empirical data as evidence for this argument especially in L2 Korean contexts. The research questions are as follows: 1. Are there differences in the perceptions of impoliteness between native speakers and non-native speakers? 2. Are there differences in the perceptions of impoliteness between novice learners and advanced learners? 3. Are there differences in the perceptions of impoliteness between two different contexts (TV talk show and the National Assembly hearing)? 4. What factors affect learners’ and native speakers’ perceptions? 5.2 Methodology Participants The experiment for the current study was performed with three different subject groups: two groups of L2 Korean learners and one group of Korean native speakers. A total of 30 participants contributed to this study: ten participants for each group. The L2 Korean learners in this study were selected from two different proficiency levels: novice 101 and advanced. The novice learners (age 20~ 27) were Korean 100-level students who were enrolled at University of Oregon (Eugene, Oregon) in the US at the time of the experiment. They had studied Korean for a minimum of three months to a maximum of nine months. Advanced learners (age 21~31) were Korean 300 or 400-level students at the time of the experiment at the same university or former students who had taken those classes at least three of four years before the experiment. All advanced learners who participated in this study have had a minimum three-month length of staying experience in South Korea. The L2 Korean learners for this current study were limited to those who were born and grew up in the US and Canada. Korean heritage learners or learners from other East Asian countries (e.g. China and Japan) were excluded from the study because there were possible cultural background effects on their perceptions of im/politeness. All participants for the native speaker group (age 26~38) were born in South Korea and spoke Korean as a mother tongue. Stimuli In the experiment, participants were asked to rate the degree of impoliteness for behaviors of Gura and TK in public polylogal discourse: the TV talk show and the National Assembly’s hearing. A total of 16 video clips were used as stimuli for this study: eight video clips from the TV talk show ‘Radio Star’ for rating the show host Gura, seven video clips from the National Assembly’s hearing and one video clip of TK’s interaction with a news reporter for rating TK. They were chosen because they all included conflictive talks or situations (i.e. Gura accidently drops his guest’s valuable collection and breaks it) which could involve impoliteness. The video clips were cut in the length of eight to fifteen seconds where Gura or TK is talking to their interlocutor without being interrupted by others so that participants for this study could focus on Gura and TK for rating them in the degree of impoliteness. Korean subtitles were provided without English translation for each video clip. The video clips for Gura are from the TV show ‘Radio Star’ that aired between 2006 and 2016 and TK’s video clips are from the National Assembly hearings that had taken place on June 10, 2010 in Seoul, Korea. Two video clips rated as polite or very polite by the native speakers were excluded to focus on impoliteness, and therefore only 14 video clips were used for the analysis. The video 102 screen shots and transcripts of stimuli in Korean and English for the current study are provided in Appendix C. Data collection procedure Korean and English versions of the survey were created using the survey software Qualtrics: the Korean version for the native speakers and the English version for the learners. The survey was conducted via emails or one-on-one meetings. The experiment was composed of two questions for each video clip. First, participants were asked to rate the degree of impoliteness of Gura and TK on a 5-point Likert scale: 1 (very impolite), 2 (impolite), 3 (neither impolite nor polite), 4 (polite) and 5(very polite). For the Korean version8 of the 5-point Likert scale which was used for the native speakers, the English terms ‘impolite’ and ‘polite’ were translated into Korean adjectives mwulyey(無禮)hata and kongson(恭遜)hata respectively. After rating, participants were also asked to write a short narrative open-ended answer explaining their rating with verbal/non-verbal features they observed for their judgements (See Fig 5.1). The open-ended question asked participants to indicate reasons for their ratings and allow them to express their thoughts freely and flexibly. Their narrative responses from the survey were used as an instrument supporting the quantitative discussion in this chapter. 8 The full version of Korean 5-point Likert scale: 1 (굉장히 무례함), 2 (무례함), 3 (무례하지도 공손하지도 않음), 4 (공손함), 5 (매우 공손함) 103 Fig 5.1 An example of the survey: the survey page for the video clip 1 5.3 Results 5.3.1 Quantitative responses Table 1 summarizes the descriptive statistics for the perceptions of impoliteness of the three groups: the novice learner group, the advanced learner group and the native speaker group. A total of 14 video clips were used as stimuli: seven video clips about Gura from the TV talk show and seven video clips about TK from the National Assembly hearing. 104 Table 5.1 Mean scores and standard deviations (SD) for video clips Video clip Novice learners Advanced learners Native speakers Context Video Mean score SD Mean score SD Mean score SD A Clip 1 2.3 0.68 1.8 0.42 1.9 0.88 TV talk show Clip 2 2.4 0.97 1.9 0.74 2.1 0.74 ‘Radio Star’ Clip 3 2.3 0.68 2.0 0.47 2.0 0.67 Clip 4 2.2 0.92 1.7 0.68 1.8 0.92 Clip 5 1.7 0.68 1.7 0.82 1.6 0.84 Clip 6 2.1 0.74 2.0 0.67 2.2 0.79 Clip 7 2.1 0.74 1.7 0.82 1.9 0.88 Avg. Mean score & SD (Clip 2.16 0.77 1.83 0.66 1.93 0.82 1~7) B Clip 8 3.9 1.10 1.7 0.48 1.9 0.32 The National Clip 9 3.2 1.23 1.9 0.74 2.8 0.79 Assembly’s Clip 10 3.3 1.25 1.7 0.48 2.2 0.63 hearing Clip 11 3.9 0.88 2.5 0.97 1.5 0.53 Clip 12 3.4 1.17 2.3 0.68 1.2 0.42 Clip 13 3.4 1.27 1.6 0.52 1.0 0 Clip 14 2.4 1.08 1.0 0 1.0 0 Avg. Mean score & SD (Clip 3.36 1.14 1.81 0.55 1.66 0.38 8~14) As Table 5.1 displays, the three groups have similar mean scores for Gura from the TV talk show: 2.16 for native learners, 1.83 for advanced learners and 1.93 for native speakers. Overall, it seems that all three groups have quite similar perceptions for Gura as very impolite (the score 1) or impolite (the score 2). None of mean scores from all three groups exceed 2.5 for Gura. Those results support that there is not much difference between the three groups in the way they perceived Gura’s behaviors in terms of the degree of im/politeness. For TK from the National Assembly hearing (video clip 8~14), however, the mean score of novice learners jumped to 3.36 while the mean score of advanced learners and native speakers are 1.81 and 1.66 respectively. The mean scores of novice learners for TK are leaning much more towards the polite side than advanced learners and native speakers. The mean SD values for novice learners also increase for TK although the mean SDs of advance learners and native speakers all decreased for TK. The mean SD of advanced learners decreases from 0.66 for Gura to 0.55 for TK and the mean SD of native speakers also decrease from 0.82 for Gura to 0.38 for TK. The mean SD of novice learners increases from 0.77 for Gura to 1.14 for TK. These results indicate that the ratings of novice learners for TK are spread out more over the scores than for Gura. It is important to be noted that all participants of the advanced learner group and the native 105 speaker group rated TK as very impolite (the mean score 1) with the SD value zero for the video clip 14 while novice learners’ SD is 1.08 with their mean score 2.4 for the clip 14. Another interesting result is that the average mean scores both by the advanced learners and the native speakers for Gura are higher (less impolite) than their average mean scores for TK. The average mean score by the advanced learners for Gura is 1.83 and it is 0.02 higher than the average mean score for TK (1.81). Similar to the advanced learners, the average mean score by the native speakers for Gura (1.93) is higher than their average mean score for TK (1.66) by 0.27. However, unlike the advance learners and the native speakers, the novice learners’ average mean score for Gura (2.16) is lower that for TK (3.36) by 1.2. The next figures, Fig 5.2 and Fig 5.3, show the difference in rating Gura and TK between the three groups more visually clear. Fig 5.2 displays the results from the participants across for the video clips 1 through 7 from the TV talk show and the vertical axis shows the number of participants for the applicable ratings. From the result, it appears that the novice learners and the advanced learners show similar perceptions with Korean native speakers. The majority of participants from all three groups are leaning towards the categories ranging from very impolite to neither impolite nor polite. Only one or two participants from the novice learner group and the advanced learner group rated Gura in the TV talk show as polite, although no one from the native speaker group rated Gura as polite or very polite except one participant for Clip 4. None of participants from all three groups rated Gura as very polite in any video clip. The perception of im/politeness for TK from the National Assembly hearing is illustrated in Fig 5.3. The most discernible difference from Fig 5.2 (about Gura from TV talk show) is that the novice learners’ ratings are spread through all categories almost evenly from impolite to very polite for TK. Except only two participants for the clip 14, no one from the novice learner group rated TK as very impolite. The advanced learners and native speakers, however, are still concentrated in the categories from very impolite to neither impolite nor polite for TK. It is interesting that all ten participants (100%) rated TK as very impolite for the clip 13 and 14 while novice learners’ ratings are spread through all categories for those video clips. 106 Fig 5.2 The degree of im/politeness for Gura’s behaviors in the TV talk show ‘Radio Star’ (video clip 1~7) 107 Fig 5.3 The degree of im/politeness for TK’s behaviors at the National Assembly hearing (video clip 8~14) From the comparison of Fig 5.2 and Fig 5.3, it appears that novice learners have quite different perceptions of im/politeness from the native speakers for TK in the given context, although they show fairly close ratings with native speakers for Gura in the TV talk show. For a more accurate statistical comparison, the results were examined by one- way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey test (p<.005). For Gura in the context of TV talk show (clip 1~7), there were no significant differences between the three groups: novice 108 learners, advanced learners and native speakers. The significant differences were found between the novice learners and the native speakers for the video clips 8, 11, 12, 13, and 14. They are all TK’s video clips from the National Assembly hearing. The novice learners’ perceptions were also significantly different from the advance learners’ perceptions for those same video clips, while there was no significant different between the advance learner group and the native speaker group. Fig 5.4 The novice and advanced learners’ mean score difference from the native speakers’ mean scores Fig 5.4 shows the difference of mean perception scores of the novice learners and advanced learners from the native speakers’ mean scores for each video clip. In Fig 5.4, it is clearly seen that both novice learners and advanced learners perceived situations much more differently from the native speakers for TK at the National Assembly hearing than for Gura from the TV talk show. The difference of mean values of the novice learners and the advanced learners from the native speakers for each video clip for Gura in the TV talk show (Clip 1 ~Clip 7) stays less than 0.5 but the difference increases largely overall up to max 2.4 for TK at the National Assembly hearing (Clip 8~ Clip 14). Especially, the advanced learner group does not show any difference from the native 109 speakers for Clip 3 and Clip 14, and the biggest difference is 1.1 for Clip 12. The novice learners show different perceptions from the native speakers from the minimum difference 0.1 (Clip 5) up to the maximum difference 2.4 (Clip 11 and Clip 13). A closer look at the individual responses for each situation may provide a deeper insight how learners perceived situations differently from native speakers. Table 5.2 illustrates individual participants’ ratings for Clip 8, 11, 12, 13, and 14. Those are the video clips where the perceptions of the novice learners were significantly different from the advanced learners and the native speakers. In a total of 50 responses from the novice learner group (10 participants x five video clips), 25 responses (50%) are a score of 4 (polite) or 5 (very polite) while there are only two responses from the advanced learners that are a score of 4 (polite) and none from the native speakers that are a score of 4 (polite) or 5 (very polite). As seen in Table 5.2, 100% of the responses from the native speakers for TK in the video clips 8, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are a score of 1 (very impolite) or 2 (impolite). Table 5.2 Individual participants’ ratings for the video clips 8, 11, 12, 13, and 14 Clip 8 Clip 11 Clip 12 Clip 13 Clip 14 Nov. Adv Nat. Nov. Adv Nat. Nov. Adv Nat. Nov. Adv Nat. Nov. Adv Nat. . . . . . P1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 P2 3 1 2 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 P3 3 1 2 4 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 P4 3 2 2 4 2 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 P5 4 2 2 4 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 P6 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 P7 5 2 2 4 3 2 4 3 1 4 2 1 3 1 1 P8 5 2 2 4 3 2 4 3 1 5 2 1 3 1 1 P9 5 2 2 5 4 2 5 3 2 5 2 1 4 1 1 P10 5 2 2 5 4 2 5 3 2 5 2 1 4 1 1 Mean 3.9 1.7 1.9 3.9 2.5 1.5 3.4 2.3 1.2 3.4 1.6 1.0 2.4 1.0 1.0 score 110 Especially for the video clip 14, it is important to notice that the novice learners’ responses spread widely and almost evenly from a score of 1 (very impolite) to a score of 4 (impolite) while all advance learners and native speakers rated TK in the video clip as very impolite (score 1). This result is supported with the mean SD values for TK at the National Assembly hearing. Back to Table 1, the novice learners’ mean SD is 1.14 while the mean SD values for the advanced learners and native speakers are 0.55 and 0.38 respectively. 5.3.2 Qualitative responses From the open-end responses, the 30 participants generated 765 verbal and nonverbal elements (about 1.8 elements per participant for one video clip) as reasons for their ratings and the frequency of those verbal and nonverbal features is presented in Table 5.3. Table 5.3 The frequency of verbal and non-verbal features mentioned by participants Features Clip 1 - Clip 7 Clip 8 - Clip 14 Novice Advanced Native Novice Advanced Native Tone/Intensity/Speech rate 36 29 32 22 17 19 (30%) (16.1%) (22.9%) (26.2%) (14.5%) (15.3%) Manner of speaking 2 1 0 11 9 11 (Interruption/repetition etc.) (1.7%) (0.6%) (0%) (13.1%) (7.7%) (8.9%) Morphological/lexical 18 33 32 22 12 12 features (15%) (18.3%) (22.9%) (26.2%) (10.3%) (9.7%) (Honorifics/Panmal/Sentence endings etc.) Context of dialogue 12 37 26 2 51 53 (10%) (20.6%) (18.6%) (2.4%) (43.6%) (42.7%) Eye/facial expression 17 29 16 12 17 21 (14.2%) (16.1%) (11.4%) (14.3%) (14.5%) (16.9%) Finger/hand/arm gesture 21 31 25 6 1 7 (17.5%) (17.2%) (17.9%) (7.1%) (0.9%) (5.6%) Body posture 7 18 9 9 10 1 (5.8%) (10%) (6.4%) (10.7%) (8.5%) (0.8%) Guest reaction 7 2 0 0 0 0 (5.8%) (1.1%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) Total 120 180 140 84 117 124 (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) 111 In Table 5.3, they were classified in eight categories: prosodic features (tone/intensity/speech rate), manner of speaking (interruption/repetition etc.), morphological/lexical features (honorifics, panmal, sentence endings etc.), context of the dialogue, eye/facial expressions, finger/hand/arm gestures, body posture, and third observer’s reaction. Those verbal and nonverbal features were mentioned in participants’ narrative responses as a basis for their judgement for the video clips and participants named those features as the main reasons that affected their perceptions of Gura and TK’s behaviors in terms of impoliteness. Prosodic features As shown in Table 5.3, the novice learners heavily and consistently reported that they had noticed the prosodic features which are mostly about tone (i.e. pitch), intensity (i.e. the volume of vocalization) and speech rate for both Gura and TK. In novice learners’ responses, those features make up 30% of the total number of features mentioned in the ratings of Gura and 22% for the ratings for TK. The prosodic features were the most frequently mentioned feature by the novice learners. The prosodic features were also mentioned highly frequently by the advance learners (16.1 %, the third most frequently mentioned feature) and the native speakers (22.9%, one of the two most frequently mentioned features) for their ratings of Gura. The next narrations presented in Table 5.4 are extracted from the narrative responses of participants. The participants of all three groups shared the following characteristics of Gura’s voice as impolite features: the high-pitched voice, the extreme pitch variation, the high vocal intensity and the fast speech rate. While all three groups’ participants perceived Gura as impolite with similar prosodic features as shown in Table 5.4, 112 Table 5.4 Participants’ narrative responses about prosodic features of Gura Prosodic features Narrative responses (Group) Rating Clip No. Intonation • “…his intonation is very varied” (Novice) 2, impolite 1 (the pitch • “the tone that goes down then up seems 2, impolite 4 variation) childish to me” (Novice) • “his voice goes down and then up” (Novice) 2, impolite 6 • “He uses lots of inflections in his voice” (Advanced) 1, very impolite 6 Intensity • “His voice is very loud” (Novice) 1, very impolite 2 (the volume of • “He is tone is slightly loud, like he is angry” 2, impolite 5 vocalization) (Novice) 2, impolite 5 • “His voice got louder” (Advanced) Pitch • “He raises his voice” (Advanced) 2, impolite 5 • “(his) voice raises” (Native) 1, very impolite 6 • “He is raising his voice (Novice) 1, very impolite 6 Speech rate • “he was… talking very fast” (Novice) 2, impolite 2 • “he speaks very fast” (Native) 1, impolite 1 Other • “dragging out of words appears to indicate 2, impolite 4 frustration” (Novice) • “His words lengthen at the end” (Novice) 2, impolite 7 While all three groups’ participants perceived Gura as impolite with similar prosodic features as shown in Table 5.4, the ratings by novice learners on TK stand in stark contrast to those of advanced learners and native speakers. Many novice learners pointed out TK’s monotone and lower pitch as features that made them feel TK was polite. The next examples are extracted from the narrative responses of novice learners. • “TK seemed to be speaking politely with an even tone and he didn't raise his voice” (Clip #8, Novice, 4-polite) • “TK uses a very even tone of voice” (Clip #8, Novice, 4-polite) • “TK’s tone is unemotional” (Clip #9, Novice, 5-very polite) • “TK’s professional tone” (Clip #13, Novice, 5-very polite) However, advanced learners and native speakers perceived TK as impolite with same prosodic features as shown in the next examples. 113 • “TK’s tone of voice is somewhat rude” (Clip #9, Advanced, 2-impolite) • “TK’s voice tone sounds negative and discrediting” (Clip #10, Advanced, 1-very impolite) • “TK’s tone feels sarcastic” (Clip #11, Native, 2-impolite) The context of dialogue Unlike the novice learners, the advanced learners and the native speakers seem to focus on the context of the dialogue more than prosodic features or body gestures for their ratings on Gura in clip 1 through clip 7. The next examples are participants’ narrative responses pointing out ‘Context of dialogue’ as an impolite feature. • “the context of question- too private” (Clip #1, Native, 2-impolite) • “Verbal Context: Gura is commenting on her usage of "aykyo" directly, which could be uncomfortable” (Clip #2, Advanced, 2-impolite) • “The contents of what Gura is saying also indicate very impolite speech” (Clip #2, Advanced, 2-impolite) • “(Gura) continued to reprimand the person for talking too much” (Clip #3, Advanced, 2-impolite) • “Gura is pointing out what he thinks is a character flaw in the guest -talks too much” (Clip #3, Advanced, 2-impolite) • “Gura is disparaging the guest as he talks too much” (Clip #3, Native, 2- impolite) • “I found this sample impolite because Gura is telling off the person talking” (Clip #4, Advanced, 2-impolite) • “Gura berates the person he is talking to.” (Clip #5, Advanced, 1-very impolite) For clips 8 to 14, the context was the major feature that the advanced learners and the novice learners relied on for their judgement of TK. The context of the dialogue is mentioned 51 times (43.5%) by the advanced learners and 53 times (42.7%) by the native speakers while it is mentioned only two times by the novice learners. The next examples are narrative responses from participants for TK at the National Assembly’s hearing. 114 • “The verbal context shows that TK is kind of admitting his loss of responsibility in an insincere way.” (Clip #8, Advanced, 2-impolite) • “TK uses the American English equivalent of "Happy now?", which is very rude and indicates annoyance.” (Clip #8, Advanced, 2-impolite) • “TK’s saying " twaysssupnikka? ‘Are you happy?’” feels very confrontational and impolite” (Clip #8, Native, 1-very impolite) • “TK makes the comment "if you want to call it that, then you can call it that." (Clip #10, Advanced, 2-impolite) • “TK’s saying “calhaseyyo ‘keep doing a good job’” sounds sarcastic” (Clip #11, Native, 2-impolite) • “TK’s “mwe alase hasiko ‘Do whatever you think you need to’” (Clip #11, Native, 1-very impolite) • “TK didn't really convey proper fault or accept the issues around the case based on his speech” (Clip #12, Advanced, 2-impolite) The novice learners still heavily relied on the prosodic features (26.2%) and the finger/hand/arm gestures (26.2%) for rating TK. It seems also important that the frequency of the prosodic features and the morphological/lexical (e.g. honorifics) features mentioned by the advanced learners and the native speakers for their perception noticeably decreased for TK compared to their frequencies for Gura, and the frequency of the context of dialogue increased steeply. Honorifics and polite/deferential endings Ironically, honorifics and polite/deferential endings known as politeness markers elicit quite different perceptions from participants. Both novice and advanced learners noticed those lexical and morphological politeness markers but their perceptions on those features are in sharp contrast to each other. The advance learners felt that TK was impolite even though he used a highly polite and formal speech style. The next examples are advanced learners’ narrative responses about their ratings on TK. 115 [Clip 8~14] • “Even though he is using formal language, the contents are impolite” (2 points, impolite) • “He uses the polite speech style but he is very rude towards the congresswoman in both what he says and his tone of voice” (2 points, impolite) • “I found his speech to be impolite despite the fact that he used very formal speech” (2 points, impolite) • “he makes the comment "if you want to call it that, then you can call it that." Even though, he is speaking in a high register of deferential Korean, he sounds very irritated by the accusations.” (2 points, impolite) In contrast, the novice learners felt that TK was polite because he used a formal and polite speech style. The next examples are novice learners’ narrative responses about their ratings on TK. Many novice learners perceived TK as polite (4 points) or very polite (5 points) based on his using of polite/deferential endings. [Clip 8~14] • “I think that it is polite because of the polite ending form he is using in his sentences.” (4-polite) • “There was the formal polite ending” (5-very polite) • “He (TK) uses the deferential form” (5-very polite) • “Use of -nida ending (deferential ending), formal speech style” (5-very polite) • “Given that he was using polite endings to his sentences, he came off as very polite.” (5-very polite) None of native speakers and advanced learners pointed honorifics or polite/deferential endings as features for their ratings of TK as polite as novice learners did. Focusing on audience’s reaction Even though the difference between the novice learners and the native speakers in their perceptions of impoliteness for Gura from the TV talk show was not statistically 116 significant, it is a still important result to be noted that many of the novice learners focused on the guests’ (i.e. observing spectators or audience) reactions rather than focused on the main interlocutors in the dialogue (i.e. Gura and Gura’s interlocutor) to judge Gura in terms of impoliteness. The ‘guests’ were mentioned a total of seven times by the novice learners in their narrative responses as a reason for their ratings and two times by advanced learners, whereas none of native speakers mentioned about the guests when they consider how impolite Gura’s behavior is in the context. The next examples are extracts taken from the novice learners’ narrations for the TV show ‘Radio Star. • “Based on the reaction of everyone else in the room, I think he (Gura) was being polite, but humorous.” (Clip #1, Novice, 4-polite) • “I think if he was being impolite, people wouldn't have been laughing as hard as they were.” (Clip #1, Novice, 4-polite) • “His tone and gestures are very exaggerated, making it very obvious that he is being funny. Because of this, the guests seem at ease, and I feel at ease as well.” (Clip #1, Novice, 4-polite) • “I feel like in this he is just playing a role that he is supposed to (…) The reason I think this is because everyone else reacted to him by laughing.” (Clip #2, Novice, 4-polite) These novice learners rated Gura as polite (4 points) for Clip 1 and 2. The score contribution of native speakers for those clips ranged from 1 (very impolite) to 3 (neither impolite nor polite) in the 5-point Likert scale and their mean scores are 1.9 and 2.1 respectively. No one in the native speaker group gave Gura 4 points (polite) or 5 points (very polite) for Clip 1 and Clip 2. The ratings by advance learners were not much different from the native speakers’ ratings. Their score ranged from 1 (very impolite) to 2 points (impolite) for Clip 1 and from 1(very impolite) to 3 points (Neither impolite nor polite) for Clip 2. Their mean scores are 1.8 for Clip 1 and 1.9 for Clip 2. The most frequently mentioned features by the advanced learners and the native speakers for their rating on Gura were the morphological/lexical features (e.g. panmal) (four times by native speakers, eight times by advanced learners) and the finger/hand/arm gesture (six 117 times by the native speakers, three times by the advanced learners) for Clip 1. For Clip 2, the context of dialogue (six times by the advanced learners) and the tone of the voice (four time by native speakers) were the most frequently mentioned features. Again, none of the advanced learners or the native speakers pointed the guests’ reaction as the reason for their ratings for Clip 1 and Clip 2. 5.4 Discussion This study investigated L2 Korean learners’ perception of impoliteness by using the two different contexts: the TV talk show and the National Assembly hearing. The main concern of the current study is how L2 proficiency affects learner’s perception and, furthermore, what kinds of verbal and non-verbal features L2 learners in the US and Canada rely on for evaluating the situations in terms of im/politeness. To examine the effect of L2 proficiency on the perception of impoliteness, two different learners’ groups, the novice learners and the advanced learners, were recruited and their data was compared with Korean native speakers’ ratings of the targets Gura and TK in different contexts. L2 proficiency effect on the perception of impoliteness Based of the result from the one-way ANOVA and Tukey test (p<0.005), it appears that novice learners have significantly different perceptions of the degree of impoliteness for the context of the National Assembly hearing from both advance learners and native speakers. Unlike novice learners, advanced learners demonstrated very similar perception patterns with native speakers throughout all contexts: both the TV show and the National Assembly hearing. Thus, the results indicate that there is a statistically significant L2 proficiency effect in perception of impoliteness in the context of the National Assembly’s hearing. The next important question based on this result may be why the novice learners with the low proficiency failed to judge TK as native-like. The video clips 8, 11, 12, 13 and 14 (where the novice learners’ data was significantly different from both the advanced learners and the native speakers) are politicians’ discourse collected from the National Assembly hearings. Compared to the TV talk show in which the show hosts and guests are talking about their personal lives and gossips, the 118 context of the National Assembly hearing is not only much more formal and serious but also much more difficult to understand for L2 learners than the TV talk show in terms of topics, vocabulary and expressions. There are also not many features that learners can rely on for their judgement compared to the TV show where people are allowed much more freedom to express their feelings in various ways such as sound variation or gestures. Table 5 shows screenshots from the TV show and the National Assembly hearing. Table 5.5 Screenshots from the TV talk show and the National Assembly’s hearing From Clip #2 (TV show ‘Radio Star’) From Clip #11 (the National Assembly hearing) As shown in Table 5.5, it is hard to find body gestures, facial expressions, or audience reactions in the video clip from the National Assembly’s hearing. However, it is much 119 easier to find meaningful visual features in the TV show. The TV hosts and guests gesticulate more and have more ample facial expressions. Even for audio elements, there are more audio fillers (e.g. a sigh, nonverbal exclamation), laughs, and tone variation that learners can easily notice in the TV talk show context. Even though the novice learners cannot understand the whole context of the TV show, they can use those other various cues to grasp the situation. However, for the context of the National Assembly hearing, gestures and emotional expressions are limited and there are not many cues other than the context of dialogue for the novice learners to use. The reasons why the novice learners failed to rate TK as the same degree of impoliteness as the native speakers need to be analyzed in the following aspects. Noticing the sarcastic use of honorifics The number of frequencies for verbal and non-verbal features mentioned by participants is quite evenly distributed overall for the TV show (See Table 3). For the National Assembly hearing, however, both advanced learners and native speakers are rating TK heavily on the context of dialogue. The context of dialogue is mentioned 51 times (44%) by the advanced learners and 53 times (43%) by native speakers while it is only mentioned two times by the novice learners for the National Assembly hearing. It seems that the context of the National Assembly’s hearing was too difficult for the novice learners to understand because of the lack of the knowledge of the topic and vocabulary. Instead of the context, novice learners judged TK’s behavior based on other features. One of the surprising results about novice learners is that novice learners noticed honorifics and deferential endings that TK used throughout the dialogues as sensitively as native speakers. However, they failed to notice all the sarcastic and cynical uses of those polite linguistic forms in the context, and their perception of the situation therefore became significantly different from the native speakers and the advanced learners. As discussed in Study 2, TK’s utterance through all the video clips are filled with sarcasm and insincerity even though he is using a very formal speech style with appropriate honorifics. The advanced learners noticed exactly how TK is being sarcastic and insincere towards the assembly members based on the context just as native speakers did. 120 Ironically, TK’s strict use of the honorifics and the formal speech style became the one of major reasons why the novice learners made non-native-like judgements on TK. Many novice learners perceived situations, which were evaluated ‘very impolite’ or ‘impolite’ by the native speakers, as ‘very polite’ or ‘polite’ by simply focusing on the honorifics, the polite sentence ending ‘-yo’ or the deferential ending ‘-supnita’. It seems clearly difficult for the novice learners to notice that those linguistic forms known as politeness markers can be used for sarcasm (Brown, 2013a) which is quite difficult to detect without understanding the context. Since the Korean 1st year curriculum is usually designed mainly with the polite sentence ending ‘-yo’ and the deferential ending ‘- supnita’, it seems that the novice learners cling to what they noticed for their ratings especially in the situations where the body gestures and prosodic cues are extremely limited and the context is too difficult for them to understand. The result that novice learners sensitively noticed Gura and TK’s linguistic politeness markers for their ratings in this experiment, apart from that their interpretations of the overall dialogue relying on those features were inaccurate (i.e. non-native-like), seems opposite to Cook (1999). In Cook (1999), L2 Japanese learners fail to notice the inappropriate informal speech style while they were asked to focus on specific context in their Japanese midterm listening test. This discrepancy of the results between two studies raises an interesting question about the acquisition of pragmatic competence for L2 learners. The novice learners in the current study failed to judge the degree of im/politeness in TK video clips because they could not understand the context at all and only relied on the linguistic politeness markers for their rating. The novice learners in Cook (1999) are assumed to be able both to understand the context and to notice the informal speech style since it was a part of their midterm test. However, they failed to notice the inappropriate informal speech style used throughout the narration because they were asked to focus on specific context: finding the most appropriate applicant for a job requiring several skills (See Cook, 1999). Their Japanese proficiencies do not seem high enough to execute two tasks (understand both context and pragmatic appropriateness) simultaneously as native speakers do without any special efforts. Developing pragmatic knowledge and acquiring native-like pragmatic competence seems to require much higher proficiency than at least a novice level. 121 Prosodic features perceived as impolite As for ratings on Gura, all three groups’ participants noticed and mentioned similar prosodic features and their ratings appeared quite similar to each other. For the context such as TV talk show where most people are allowed to express their emotions relatively freely in the informal atmosphere, the novice learners were able to perceive the situation quite accurately (i.e. native-like) with rich prosodic cues even though they could not understand the context of the dialogue as the native speakers did. The prosodic features frequently mentioned as impolite by all three groups are a high-pitched voice, a wide pitch range, a high vocal intensity and a fast speech rate. The result that Korean native speakers and North American L2 Korean learners perceived same vocal characteristics as impolite in this study suggests that some prosodic features may be interpreted as impolite universally across cultures as some prosodic features are assumed to be associated with politeness across cultures (Brown et al., 2014). It is also interesting that both Korean native speakers and North American learners of Korean pointed out Gura’s high-pitched voice as impolite because this finding is contradictory to the previous studies arguing that the high pitch is associated with politeness and it is universal (Ohala, 1994). However, many recent studies suggest that the high pitch may be perceived differently at a micro level by context (Culpeper, 2011; Culpeper et al., 2013), gender (Idemaru et al., 2015), or language/culture. For TK at the National Assembly hearing, some of the novice learners perceived TK as polite based on his low and monotone voice for the video clip while none of the native speakers judged TK as polite for the same reason. Again, they were led to somewhat non-native-like conclusions in the situation because the novice learners did not notice the impolite contents, the sarcastic use of honorifics, or the offensive multimodal cues. The genre effect One of the interesting results was that both the advanced learner group and the native speaker group evaluated Gura more leniently than TK. The average mean scores for Gura by the two groups were both higher (less impolite) than the ones for TK. Especially the difference between those two scores was bigger for the native speaker 122 group than for the advanced learner group. It seems that participants, except the novice learners, tend to judge impolite behaviors performed on the TV show for entertainment more generously than the impolite behaviors by TK at the hearing. The notion of ‘entertaining impoliteness’ (Culpeper, 2005; Dynel, 2013) which considers impoliteness as a source of humor and laughter rather than a source of face attack, social conflict and disharmony is a quite new perspective in impoliteness research. Considering that the TV show ‘Radio Star’ has aired for a long time (more than seven years at the time of the experiment) with the same concept ‘attacking guests impolitely’, Gura’s impolite behaviors seem to be sanctioned and naturally expected in this show especially by the native speakers. Therefore, viewers seem to perceive Gura’s aggressive behaviors towards guests more generously in the context of the TV talk show. Another result to be noted in the narrative open-ended answers is that the novice learners mentioned the ‘guests’ a total of seven times as a reason for their ratings (most of their ratings are 4 points-polite). None of the native speakers in this study mentioned about the guests when they consider how impolite Gura’s behavior is in the context. Some of the low-proficiency L2 learners who are relatively less exposed to Korean culture than the advanced learners seem to try to grasp the situations based on the overall context. The context is the genre of the video they are watching rather than the details happening between the main interlocutors of the dialogue. Since they knew it was a TV talk show for entertaining viewers, they seem to have simply thought Gura was just trying to be funny, humorous or making jokes with his target guest rather than to perceive his behaviors as genuine impoliteness. The strong connection between impoliteness and entertainment/humors has been emphasized in many recent studies (Lorenzo-Dus, 2009; Culpeper, 2011; Evans, 2012). The third party ‘audience’ has been focused as a distinctive feature identifying the impoliteness in TV shows as an entertaining feature. Considering the learners’ North American cultural background where TV talk shows are quite common for entertaining and where embarrassing, humiliating or insulting guests are easily accepted as humor in the setting of a TV show, the novice learners’ quite different rating with the native speakers about Gura based on the reactions of audience does not seem too absurd. However, it is also important to note that impoliteness is relatively a new feature for humor and entertaining for TV shows in Korea and using 123 informal sentence endings or pointing at a person with a finger can be still controversial even in the setting of a TV talk show. Possible semantic gap between English ‘impolite’ and Korean ‘mwuleyhata’ As mentioned earlier in the methodology section, the English terms impolite and polite were translated into Korean adjectives mwulyey(無禮)hata and kongson(恭遜)hata respectively for the Korean version of the 5-point Likert scale. There are other Korean adjectives that can be considered to be equivalent to English ‘impolite’ and ‘polite’ such as yeyuyepsta ‘impolite’ and yeyuypaluta ‘polite’. The reason I chose the lexemes mwulyeyhata ‘impolite’and kongsonhata ‘polite’ over the other lexemes for the current study is that they are more frequently, generally and widely used in various contexts than others. For example, the Sejong corpus provided by the National Institute of Korean Language which contains both oral and written texts with 802K sentences and 9.2 M eojeols9 shows that the lexemes mwulyeyhata ‘impolite’and kongsonhata ‘polite’ are more frequently used in both oral and written text as 339 and 468 frequency respectively while yeyuyepsta ‘impolite’ and yeyuypaluta ‘polite’ as only 2 and 84 respectively. However, it is important to note that there is inevitable difference in meaning between English impolite and Korean mwulyeyhata. According Goddard and Wierzbicka (2013), word meanings are linked with great sensitivity to what is going on in the world (i.e. word meanings are interpreted differently by different human groups at different times). In other words, the English word impolite is inadequate for covering the meaning of the Korean word mwulyeyhata and vice versa. Especially, compared to concrete words, when the words are abstract and cultural-specific terms such as implite and polite, the meanings encoded in the words can be quite different between different languages. Dictionary definitions regretfully do not give us the semantic cultural and historical background of words. Therefore, in this sense, it cannot be said that participants in this study judged Gura and TK with the completely same measure. This semantic issue can exist in any studies where multiple languages are used in the process of experiments and affect their results. 9 An eojeol is a word separated by blank spaces. 124 5.5 Conclusion This study investigated L2 learners’ perception of impoliteness in the target language by examining how L2 proficiency and cross-cultural variations affect learner’s perception of impoliteness. The study also examined what kinds of verbal and non-verbal features that North American L2 learners in the US and Canada rely on for evaluating impolite behaviors. The results show that there is a significant L2 proficiency effect when the context has limited visual and prosodic features that learners can rely on for their judgements. The study also identified that Korean honorifics is one of the major causes which lead the novice learners to misjudge impolite utterances as polite. It is because they could not understand the sarcastic use of honorifics which appear as polite on surface but convey offensive and insincere messages. The prosodic features frequently mentioned as impolite by all three groups are a high-pitched voice, a wide pitch range, a high vocal intensity and a fast speech rate. The results of the study suggest that interpreting humor, jokes and sarcasm/irony is quite a difficult pragmatic task that requires high proficiency in the target language. The findings of the study has important implications for the L2 teaching for pragmatic competence. More various linguistic elements and features in L2 such as discourse markers, deixis, humor or sarcasm/irony can be a supplementing teaching tool to boost L2 learners’ pragmatic awareness and eventually to help L2 learners develop their pragmatic competence. 125 CHAPTER VI CONCLUSION 6.1 Summary of findings The current dissertation aimed to further our understanding of impoliteness phenomena in language by investigating how impoliteness is connected with identity construction and power negotiation in on-going interaction. Since many previous impoliteness studies focused on ordinary conversation which is a short segment of dyadic dialogue, the current study has chosen naturally occurring polylogal discourse from two different institutional settings in the context of Korean: the TV talk show (television entertainment discourse) and the hearing of the National Assembly (political discourse). The study has followed the bottom-up approach (i.e. impoliteness 1 or first order impoliteness) which uses participants’ judgement of discourse for analysis (see Eelen, 2001; Locher and Watts, 2005; Mills, 2005) rather than the traditional top-down approach (impoliteness 2 or second order impoliteness) which is based on the analyst’s assessments of discourse. In the bottom-up (i.e. post-modern or discursive) approach, impoliteness is one of many aspects in relational work which is invested by individuals to construct, maintain, and negotiate interpersonal relationships in social practice (Locher and Watts, 2005). Impolite behaviors which breach social norms, expectations or appropriateness in context become marked and, therefore, elicit various negative judgements from participants. To find interpretable evidence as much as possible to assess participants’ immediate judgements and their true emotions in interaction, the current study has taken into account not only verbal utterances but also non-verbal gestures such as facial and body expressions. The study has also expanded the discussion of impoliteness to L2 learners’ perception and awareness of impoliteness in the target language by examining how L2 proficiency affects learner’s perception and what kinds of verbal and non-verbal features North American learners rely on for evaluating the degree of impoliteness compared to the native Korean speakers. In the rest of this chapter, I present brief summaries of major 126 findings from each study, followed by discussion of implications of the study and suggestions for future research. Study 1: Impoliteness and identity In Chapter 3, I have analyzed discourse from the Korean TV talk show ‘Radio Star’ and illustrated that identity is discursively constructed, shifted, and negotiated in interaction where impoliteness phenomenon is found. It has provided concrete empirical evidence that impoliteness is inextricably related to identity construction as an interactional resource (Dobs, 2014; Donaghue, 2018) by causing conflicts in interaction and, therefore, also works as a linguistic index (Blitvich, 2009) which shows where identity is negotiated. The analysis has especially highlighted that multiple identities are co-constructed by not only those who attacks other person’s face but also by those whose face is attacked through multiple levels simultaneously and dynamically in on-going interaction (Bucholtz and Hall, 2005). It has also shown that whether any social behavior is marked and unmarked is highly context-dependent. The study illustrates with strong empirical evidence that impoliteness and identity are relational concepts that are constantly renegotiated and exercised in interactions rather than a static concept (Locher and Watts, 2005). For example, the TV talk show host Gura, even though he is notorious for being impolite and aggressive towards his celebrity guests, performed various identities such as a malicious and cruel interviewer, an elder/senior, and a spokesperson of the public. Gura also shifted his identity dynamically from an impolite interviewer to a conventional polite interviewer or even an intimate friend of the guest when his guest explicitly expressed how offended he was by Gura’s behaviors. As Locher and Watts (2005) argue that impoliteness is relational, Gura’s behavior was marked more or less negatively by the guest’s reactions and Gura sensitively negotiated his identity by adjusting the degree of impoliteness. His celebrity guests also actively negotiated their various identities in interaction with Gura. Being conscious of TV viewers, they tried to show positive images by playing along with Gura’s attacks such as a cool, generous, humble or modest person but also revealed their true emotions as an offended, defensive, serious or vulnerable person. 127 Finally, the study has provided strong evidence that identity is a linguistic phenomenon (Bucholtz and Hall, 2005) which is constructed with various linguistic devices (honorifics, panmal, humble register, irony/sarcasm or switching of the speech styles etc.) in interaction. It is important to note that panmal (i.e. the informal speech style) is used not only as an impoliteness tool but also as a mitigating device to ease tension caused from the aggressive face attack. This findings again emphasize the highly context-dependent nature of the im/politeness phenomenon that is discursively emerged, and also supports that no utterance is inherently polite or impolite (Fraser & Nolan, 1981). Study 2: Impoliteness and power In Chapter 4, I have shown how closely the impolite linguistic behaviors are related to the exercise and negotiation of power by examining on-going interactions at the National Assembly’s hearing between the Minister of National Defense and the opposition party committee members. It should be noted that the exercise of power is not necessarily related only to impoliteness. We might also gain or exercise power through politeness as Bousfield (2008) states that “there is and can be no interaction – linguistic or otherwise – without power being an issue” (2008:129). However, the current study argues that the successful use of impoliteness causing offense is crucial and inevitable to exercise one’s power in political discourse and it plays a significant role to affect other interlocutor’s environment. The current study approached the issue of power as another dynamic aspect in relational work which is constantly changing and being negotiated in on-going interaction (Watts, 2003; Mills, 2005; Locher and Watts, 2008) rather than a static, absolute and definite dimension which pre-defines the relationship as described in Brown and Levinson (1987). The current study has provided fruitful contextual empirical evidence which shows the impoliteness behaviors are immediately and intimately involved in the exercise of power. Both the Minister of National Defense and the opposition party committee members exercise their power to restrict each other’s freedom of speaking to re-assert and negotiate their power in debate with various types of verbal impolite strategies such as interruption, ignoring, neglecting, and denying. The study has also found that the filler 128 mwe is used as a boost device of impoliteness with dismissive comments to show their opposite, negative, disrespectful and insincere stance. Sarcasm is another distinctive feature that was often used by the Minister of National Defense to insult, criticize and reflect his hostile attitude towards the opposition party Assembly members. It is also used to re-emphasize his absolute power and authority as the Minister of National Defense. The honorifics and humble words are used as a boost device to maximize the effect of insincerity in sarcasm. Study 3: L2 learner’s perception of impoliteness In Chapter 5, I have investigated North American L2-Korean learners’ perception of impoliteness in two different Korean contexts- the TV talk show and the hearing from the National Assembly- to identify possible differences and similarities in the perceptions of impoliteness between native speakers and non-native speakers. The study also examined how L2 proficiency affects learner’s perception and, furthermore, what kinds of verbal and non-verbal features L2 learners in the US rely on for evaluating impolite behaviors. First, the study has partially supported the L2 proficiency effect (Kasper 1997; Bardovi‐Harlig, Kathleen and Dörnyei, 1998; Bardovi-Harlig, 2001) in the perception of impoliteness. There was a significant L2 proficiency effect for the context of the National Assembly’s hearing but not for the context of the TV talk show. Since the context of political discourse has much limited visual and prosodic variations than the TV talk show, the novice learners failed to notice impoliteness in utterances (e.g. being sarcastic, insulting and ignoring) as sensitive as advanced learners and native speakers. One of crucial causes of their failure is honorifics used in utterances. The novice learners only focused on honorifics in utterances which appear as superficially polite on surface but convey impolite, offensive and insincere messages. It seems clearly difficult for the novice learners to notice the sarcastic use of honorifics (Brown, 2013a) without understanding the context. Therefore, the novice learners’ perception became significantly different from the Korean native speakers and the advanced learners. On the contrary, the novice learners showed more native-like performance in perception of the TV talk show context which has various visual and prosodic features 129 that they can rely on for their judgement of impoliteness. The prosodic features frequently mentioned as impolite by all three groups are a high-pitched voice, a wide pitch range, a high vocal intensity and the fast speech rate. Also gestures such as finger pointing and eye gaze were mentioned. This result suggests that some visual and prosodic features may be interpreted as impolite universally across cultures. The study’s result also showed that interpreting humor, jokes and sarcasm/irony is a quite difficult pragmatic task for the novice L2 learners (Cohen, 2017). Unlike the novice learners, the advanced learners demonstrated quite native-like perception both for the TV show and the National Assembly’s hearing. Lastly, the learners’ perception was affected by the genre of context. The novice learners evaluated Gura in the TV talk show much less impolite than advanced learners and native speakers did. Since they knew it was a TV talk show originally for entertaining, they perceived Gura’s behaviors as humors or banter (Lorenzo-Dus, 2009; Culpeper, 2011; Evans, 2012) while advanced learners and native speakers perceived same behaviors as more impolite. Considering that North American learners are quite familiar with TV talk shows where embarrassing, humiliating or insulting guests are often accepted as humors for entertaining TV viewer, they seem to have judged Gura’s behaviors simply as impoliteness for entertaining. However, impoliteness is relatively a new feature to Korean TV viewer and therefore, impoliteness even in the setting of TV talk show could be still controversial to native speakers. 6.2 Implications of the study The current dissertation may have important implications for studies with linguistic approaches for conflictive interactions. The results show that no linguistic forms or utterances are inherently polite or impolite (Fraser and Nolen, 1981) and the impolite phenomenon is highly context-dependent. Therefore, the current study argues that the contextual evaluations concerned with how participants in interaction evaluate such behaviors are crucial. The current study also emphasizes the importance of empirical evidence because what we understand about the impoliteness phenomenon is covering merely a small part of what it is or what it does in various social interactions and many arguments in previous research are missing empirical evidence supporting 130 them. For identity, power and their interrelationship with the phenomenon of impoliteness, the current study has provided solid empirical evidence to support that the exercise of power and identity construction are inextricably connected to impoliteness phenomenon in linguistic interaction. They are all important interactional resources which carry on conversation. It is especially meaningful that the current study analyzed naturally occurring polylogal institutional discourse in the context of Korean which has been rarely explored in previous research. Many Korean impoliteness studies as well as politeness studies have narrowly focused on lexical or grammatical strategies in a single sentence without much discussion of its context. Hence, the current study helps readers on what to expect in Korean conflictive talks in television media and political discourse. The findings in the current dissertation also suggest that the definitions of impoliteness proposed by the previous studies such as ‘face attack’ and ‘face threat’ are quite limited definitions to cover what it does in actual social interactions. Impoliteness is much more complicated phenomenon in discourse. It needs to be re-defined but must be supported by empirical evidence. This study also has important implications for L2 teaching. First, L2 Korean teaching needs to deal with more unpleasant contexts in classroom which includes incidents of rudeness, impoliteness, disrespect or offence. L2 learners need to be given opportunities of learning impoliteness in their target language so that they can notice impolite behaviors and properly counteract to them when they encounter any unpleasant situations in L2. Also Korean honorifics need to be taught with more various contexts which include the sarcastic use of honorifics for impoliteness. Even for novice learners, it seems crucial to introduce them to various functions of Korean honorifics because the current study clearly showed that L2 learners can be misled by those honorific forms and reach non-nativelike judgements. Teaching or introducing impoliteness to L2 students can benefit from using various authentic interactions from the real world. 6.3 Suggestions for future research I have linked the impoliteness phenomenon with the emergence of identity and the exercise and negotiation of power in interactions that occur in specific institutionally characterized genres: the TV talk show and the political hearing. The current study 131 focused on those two links each but did not fully discuss the link between those three terms ‘impoliteness, identity and power’ together. As Locher and Watts (2005) argue, impoliteness, identity and power are all crucial relational aspects which exist in human interactions. I hope my study gives a glimpse of how closely these three are connected. For example, there is the power exercise in Gura’s interaction with his celebrity guests even though the data was only used for the link between impoliteness and identity construction, and there is identity negotiation in TK’s interactions with members at the National Assembly’s hearing even though they were used only for the link between impoliteness and the exercise of power. I leave the discussion of how the three aspects are intertwined in interaction for further research. Also it is clear in my data that participants in on-going social interaction in any genres hardly describe the impoliteness phenomenon as impolite, rude, aggressive, offensive or insulting in the middle of an interaction. Those lexemes that are commonly used for describing and judging the impolite behaviors seem not from the co-participants’ perspective in ongoing interaction but from the researchers’ perspective observing the interaction after the situation has ended (Locher & Watts, 2005). The quantitative approach with corpus data is certainly an area that needs further research to gain how participants verbally express/describe the situation involving the negatively marked behavior in ongoing interactions. Even though the current study chose the polylogal interactions which have the important third factor ‘the audience’ (Bell, 1984; Blitvich, 2009), the roles of audience have not been discussed enough. The participants in the TV talk show and the political hearings care about how they are viewed by the audience. They want to be likable, popular, and also recognized. Their behaviors and reactions cannot be free from the audience and they are inevitably related to the public images they want to claim to the audience. Because of this reason, the perception data from the native speakers in Study 3 in the current dissertation could be good supporting data covering the role of the audience for Study 1 and Study 2, which has not been covered by the current dissertation. Studies on television discourse or film discourse as a polylogal model of communication, therefore, still could benefit from future investigation to fully discuss the issue of impoliteness, identity and power including the factor of audience and to help understand 132 the connection between impoliteness and identity or power in the case of mediated interactions. Regarding L2 learner’s perception of impoliteness, the present study can further our discussion towards the issue of assessment of L2 pragmatics. There are several types of tools to assess L2 learners’ pragmatic competence such as the Written Discourse Completion Test (WDCT), the Multiple-choice Discourse Completion Test (MDCT), role-plays, and interview tasks (Aufa, 2013). However, most pragmatic assessments heavily rely on students’ pragmatic production on few speech acts such as complaints, requests, and apologies (Cohen, 2017). The current study showed that impoliteness could occur in any kind of human interaction in many layers with various communicative elements, and that just acquiring high grammatical competence does not guarantee the equivalent pragmatic competence. Assessing L2 learners’ perception of impoliteness in discourse such as noticing discourse markers, deixis, humor or sarcasm/irony can be a supplementing tool to help L2 learners develop their pragmatic competence. 133 APPENDIX A YALE ROMANIZATION SYSTEM (Sohn, 2001) Hankul Phonemic Phonetic Yale Letters value in IPA value in IPA Romanization ______________________________________________________________________ Consonants ㅂ p [p,b] p ㅍ ph [ph] ph ㅃ p’ [p’] pp ㄷ t [t,d] t ㅌ th [th] th ㄸ t’ [t’] tt ㅅ s [s, ʃ] s ㅆ s’ [s’, ʃ’] ss ㅈ c [c, ɟ] c ㅊ ch [ch] ch ㅉ c’ [c’] cc ㄱ k [k, g] k ㅋ kh [kh] kh ㄲ k’ [k’] kk ㅁ m [m] m ㄴ n [n, ɲ] n ㅇ ŋ [ŋ] ng ㄹ l [l, ɾ] l ㅎ h [h] h ______________________________________________________________________ Vowels and diphthongs ㅣ i [i] i ㅟ y, wi [y, wi] wi ㅔ e [e] ey ㅖ je [je] yey ㅞ we [we] wey ㅚ ø, we [ø, we] oy ㅐ ɛ [ɛ] ay 134 ㅒ jɛ [jɛ] yay ㅙ wɛ [wɛ] way ㅡ ɨ [ɨ] u ㅓ ə [ə] e ㅕ jə [jə] ye ㅝ wə [wə] we ㅏ a [a] a ㅑ ja [ja] ya ㅘ wa [wa] wa ㅜ u [u] wu ㅠ ju [ju] y(w)u ㅗ o [o] o ㅛ jo [jo] yo ㅢ ɨj [ɨ(j), i, e] uy 135 APPENDIX B LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE KOREAN GLOSS ACC Accusative ul/lul ASS Assumptive mode -keyss COM Committal ci COMP Complementizer ko/ku/kwu COND Conditional (u)myen CONJ Conjectural keyss CONN Connectives COP Copular -(i)ta CIRCUM Circumstantial nuntey/untey DEC Declarative ta DEF Deferential -(su)pnita/pnita DM Discourse Marker EX Exclamatory FR Factual Realization ney/kwuna HBL Humble register HON Honorific -(u)si IE Informal ending e/a IMP Imperative -(e)la/-(u)la INF Infinitive suffix LOC Locative -e(se) NEC Necessitative -(e)ya 136 NEG Negative an/mos NMZ Nominalizer -ki/-nya NOM Nominative i/ka PAS Passive PL Plural suffix -da/nya/ca/la POL Polite register POSS Possessive marker -uy PST Past suffix -ass/ess Q Interrogative kka/nya RL Relativizer -(u)l/(u)n/n SIM Simultaneous -(u)myense SJV Subjuctive mood -essu TEM Temporal -ey TOP Topic marker un/nun 137 APPENDIX C SCRIPTS OF VIDEO CLIPS USED IN STUDY 3 1. TV talk show ‘Radio Star’: Clip 1 ~ Clip 8 [Clip 1] Gura: 아니 그럼 여자를 밖에서 만나나, 주로? Then, are you meeting girls outside, usually? Guest: 저요? Me? Gura: (여자들한테) 대시를 하고 그러는거야? 아니, 궁금해서 그래. That means you’re flirting with girls (you meet on the street)? I’m just curious. Guest: 최근에는 (여자를) 안 만났어요. 진짜로요. Recently, I haven’t dated. Really. Gura: 그럼 본인의 집에 안 부르면 어디를 가냐는 말이야. If you don’t date with a girl at your place, where do you go? Guest: 대시는 안 해요, 근데. But I don’t flirt (with a girl). [Clip 2] Guest: 어, 몰라요. 저 진짜 (애교) 없는데… Uh, I don’t know. I really don’t have (aykyo). 왜 자꾸 (사람들이) 애교가 있다고 그러지? Why people keep saying that I have aykyo? Gura: 니가 모르면 누가 알아? Who knows if you don’t know? 아, 정말. 강지영 애교를 강지영이가 모르면 누가 아냐고. Ah, really. Who knows Jiyoung’s aykyo if Jiyoung does not know? 김구라가 아냐고? Does Gura knows (your aykyo)? [Clip 3] Gura: 이 사람 얘기 다 들어주면 안 돼. 말이 너무 많아. We shouldn’t keep listening to him. He talks too much. 138 뭘 다 들어줘? We don’t have to listen to all he says. Guest: (웃음) (smile) Gura: 말이 너무 많아! He talks too much! [Clip 4] One guest’s name is Nabi, which means butterfly. Guest: 나비 날아가겠네. Nabi would fly away. Gura: 야, 너 뭐야? 그런 거 (농담)에 실망하는 대중들이 많아. Hey, what? There are so many people who are disappointed of your joke. 좀 전까지 재미있다가, ‘나비 날아간다’에, (사람들이) ‘에이’ 이런다니까. Your jokes were funny, but such a joke with ‘Nabi’ makes people say ‘Ughh’. 함부로 (말을) 뱉지마. Don’t say whatever you want without thinking. [Clip 5] Gura: (여자친구를 ) 왜 교회를 못 가게 하냐고? Why don’t you let your girlfriend go to church? Guest: 난 이렇게 살게. 난 다 이해해요. 이 사랑의 방식도 다 이해해요. I would live like this. I understand all. I understand all kinds of love. Gura: 왜 교회를 못 가게 하냐고? I’m saying why you don’t let your girlfriend go to church. Guest: 나만 믿으라고. Because I want her to believe only me. Gura: 뭘 너만 믿어? 네가 신이야? What do you mean you want her to believe in you? Are you god? Guest: 내가 구해줄 거니까, 나만 믿으라고. Because I will save her. That’s why I’m saying ‘just believe me’. 139 [Clip 6] Gura: 아니, 이봐요! Hey, you! 아니, 뜬지 얼마나 됐다고 이런 걸 안 해. You just became a star. Why aren’t you doing what I ask? Guest: 아하, 참… Ah, well… [Clip 7] The word ‘clam’ is used as a metaphor meaning interesting topics to talk about for the show. Gura: 그런 프로그램을 하면 돼죠. So you should do that kind of program. 영철이가 조개를 많이 캐오거든. 근데 이 형은 오늘 썩은 조개를 캐오잫아. Youngchul brings lots of clams. But you today bring rotten clams. 뭐 쓸게 없어. 다 버리잖아 다! There are nothing to use. All useless! 팔아먹을 조개를 가지고 와 봐. Please bring clams that I can sell. 2. The National Assembly’s hearing: (Clip 8 ~ 14) [Clip 8] Member: 이 문제에 대해서 다시 한번 답변을 주시기 바랍니다. Please answer again for the issue. TK: 제가 모든 책임을 지겠습니다. 됐습니까? I’ll take all responsibility for that. Now is it OK? [Clip 9] Member: 국방부 장관과 합참의장은 도의적이고 법적이고 정치적인 책임을 면할 수 없다고 생각합니다. I think the Minister of National Defense and the Chairman of Joint Chiefs should take moral, legal and political responsibility. 스스로 사임할 생각은 없으십니까? Are you not going to step down? 140 TK: 그 문제에 대해선 저는 오래전에 사직서를 내 놨고, Regarding the issue, I have already submitted a letter of resignation 우리 국민들의 뜻이나 모든 실질적인 문제를 따져서 Considering all practical issues and what Korean people want, 임명권자가 결정하실 문제라고 생각합니다. The president will make a decision. [Clip 10] Member: 장관께서는 이 싸움이 패전이고 스스로 패장이라고 규정하시는 겁니까? Do you define this battle as a lost battle and you as a defeated general? TK: 우리가 완벽하게 방어하지 못한 실패에 대한 것은 인정을 하는 것입니다. I just admit that we have failed to defend perfectly. Member: 그러니까 패전이고 스스로 패장이라고 규정하시는 거죠? So you’re defining it as a lost battle and you as a defeated general, aren’t you? TK: 꼭 그렇게 말씀을 하시고 싶으시다면 하시죠! If you really want to put it that way, do it. [Clip 11] Member: 그렇다면 정전협정상 감시와 시찰을 행할 권한은 엄연히 있는 것 아닙니까, 북측 수석위원에게? If that (what the ceasefire agreement says) is so, doesn’t the North’s committee have authority to conduct investigation based on the ceasefire agreement? 장관님 어떻습니까? Minister, what do you think about that? TK: 존경하는 의원님, 뭐, 법리적으로 말씀을 하시는데 My honorable member, you are talking from jurisprudential thinking 상식적으로 생각을 좀 하실 필요가 있을 겁니다. but you need to think in common sense. 북한이 지금 어떻게 보면 모든 (일의) 가해자 입니다. In a sense, the North is the attacker for this incident. 사건을 일으킨 가해자인데, Even though they are the attacker of the accident 가해자 하고 같이, 같이, 우리 같이 이걸 한 번 조사를 해 보는게 어떻겠냐 그런 말씀을 하시려는 것 141 아니겠습니까? Are you trying to say that we need to investigate it with the attacker together? 뭐 북한을 정확하게, 그렇게 잘 인정해 주시는 것에 대해서 좋은 판단이라고 생각합니다. I think it is a very good judgment that you recognize and authorize the North side well and precisely. 알겠습니다. 잘 하시고. I see. Keep doing a good job. [Clip 12] Member: (해군의 방위막을) 다 뚫고, 잠수정이 모선에, 공해상의 모선에 도착할 수 있는 확률은 0.81%입니다. The chance that the North Korean submarine could pass all (South Korean defense lines) and reach our mother ship in international water is 0.81%. TK: 나오지 않는 계산을 지금 만드신 박선숙 의원님께서 대단히 훌륭하신 계산을 하셨는데, Member Pak Sun-sook who just made up a non-sense (impossible) calculation made a very excellent calculation, but... Member: 지금 그거는 No. That is… TK: 오히려 저희가 박선숙 의원임의 탁월한 계산방법을 한 수 배웠으면 좋겠습니다. Rather, we (soldiers) wish we could learn the excellent calculation skill from you, Member Pak.’ [Clip 13] Member: 그런데 지금 교신 기록이 약 10 시간 정도 없거든요? But the communication record for 10 hours is missing, isn’t it? TK: 의원님! Honorable member! Member: 네. Yes. TK: 제가 볼 때에는, 거기에는 다양한 무선 통신 체계가 있기 때문에, In my view, because there are various radio communication systems 142 의원님께서 보신 것은 아마 그 한 가지만… What you saw must be just one of them… Member: 그렇다면 다른 다양한 교신 기록도 저희에게 보여주십시오. Then, show us the various radio communication records too, please. TK: 존경하는 우리 박영선 의원님께서 교신에 대해서 굉장히 관심이 많으시고 My honorable member Park is very interested in the radio communication and 하여간 모든 교신기록을 다 보시려고 하시는 것에 대해서 tries to see all communication records 제가 감탄을 합니다. 어떻게 그렇게…. 무슨 집안 내력이신지… I admire it. It must run in her family. [Clip 14] Reporter: 그런데 그 말씀은 (감사결과는) But what you’re saying is that 대통령에게까지 보고가 잘못됐다는 거 아닙니까? what has been reported to the President was wrong, right? 밑에서 그 보고가 누락되었다는 것은… The fact that the report was missing… TK: 그래서? 그래서? 그래서 어쩌자는 거요? 그래서 어쩌자는 거요? So what? What? What are you going to do with that? Reporter: 거기에 대해서 말씀을 듣고 싶어서요. I just want to hear your comments about that. TK: 고맙습니다. 수고하셨습니다. Thank you for your work. 143 REFERENCES CITED Alibali, M., Bassok, M., Solomon, K. O., Syc, S. E., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1999). Illuminating mental representations through speech and gesture. Psychological Science, 10(4), 327–333. Agha, A. (1997). Tropic aggression in the Clinton-Dole presidential debate. Pragmatics, 7(4), 461-497. Alvesson, M. (1998). Gender relations and identity at work: A case study of masculinities and femininities in an advertising agency. Human Relations, 51(8), 969-1005. Andreeva, B., Bonacchi, S., & Barry, W. (2016). Prosodic cues of genuine and mock impoliteness in German and Polish. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Speech Prosody. Antaki, C., & Widdicombe, S. (1998). Identity as an achievement and as a tool. Identities in talk, 1-14. Archer, D. (2005). Questions and Answers in the English Courtroom (1640 1760): A sociopragmatic analysis (Vol. 135). John Benjamins Publishing. Archer, D. E. (2008). Verbal aggression and impoliteness: related or synonymous?. LANGUAGE POWER AND SOCIAL PROCESS, 21, 181. Aronsson, K. (1998). Identity-in-interaction and social choreography. Research on language and social interaction, 31(1), 75-89. Aronsson, K., & Rundström, B. (1989). Cats, dogs, and sweets in the clinical negotiation of reality: On politeness and coherence in pediatric discourse. Language in society, 18(4), 483-504. Aufa, F. (2013). The assessment tool of L2 learners' pragmatic competence: Written discourse completion test (WDCT). UII Journal of English and Education, 6(1). Avdi, E. (2005). Negotiating a pathological identity in the clinical dialogue: Discourse analysis of a family therapy. Psychology and psychotherapy: Theory, research and practice, 78(4), 493-511. 144 Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford university press. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001) Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics. In K.R. Rose and G. Kasper (eds) Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp. 13-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bardovi‐Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. Tesol Quarterly, 32(2), 233-259. Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2003). Face and politeness: new (insights) for old (concepts). Journal of pragmatics, 35(10-11), 1453-1469. Barke, A. (2011). Situated functions of addressee honorifics in Japanese television drama. Situated Politeness, London: Continuum International Publishing Co, 111- 128. Baumer, M., & Van Rensburg, H. (2011). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure in computer- mediated communication. Coolabah, (5), 34-53. Beebe, L. M. (1995). Polite fictions: Instrumental rudeness as pragmatic competence. Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics, 1995, 154J168. Beebe, L. M., & Cummings, M. C. (1985). Speech act performance: A function of the data collection procedure?. Beebe, L. M., & Takahashi, T. (1989). Sociolinguistic variation in face-threatening speech acts. In The dynamic interlanguage (pp. 199-218). Springer, Boston, MA. Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in society, 13(2), 145-204. Bella, S. (2011). Mitigation and politeness in Greek invitation refusals: Effects of length of residence in the target community and intensity of interaction on non-native speakers’ performance. Journal of pragmatics, 43(6), 1718-1740. Benwell, B., & Stokoe, E. (2006). Discourse and identity. Edinburgh University Press. Besnier, N. (2004). Consumption and cosmopolitanism: Practicing modernity at the second-hand marketplace in Nuku'alofa, Tonga. Anthropological Quarterly, 7-45. 145 Blattner, G., & Fiori, M. (2011). Virtual social network communities: An investigation of language learners' development of sociopragmatic awareness and multiliteracy skills. CALICO journal, 29(1), 24. Blitvich, P. G. C. (2009). Impoliteness and identity in the American news media: The “Culture Wars”. Blitvich, P. G. C. (2010). A genre approach to the study of im-politeness. International Review of Pragmatics, 2(1), 46-94. Blitvich, P. G. C., Bou-Franch, P., & Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2013). Identity and impoliteness: The expert in the talent show Idol. Journal of Politeness Research, 9(1), 97-121. Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning how to say what you mean in a second language: A study of speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 29-60. Bonikowska, M. (1985). Opting out from performing speech acts pragmatic domain? Unpublished manuscript, University of Warsaw, Poland. Bousfield, D. (2007). Beginnings, middles and ends: A biopsy of the dynamics of impolite exchanges. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(12), 2185-2216. Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in the struggle for power. Impoliteness in Language. Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 127-53. Bousfield, D. (2010). Researching impoliteness and rudeness: Issues and definitions. Interpersonal pragmatics, 6, 101-134. Bowes, A., & Katz, A. (2011). When sarcasm stings. Discourse Processes, 48(4), 215- 236. Boxer, D., & Pickering, L. (1995). Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: The case of complaints. Brown, L. (2010). Politeness and second language learning: The case of Korean speech styles. 146 Brown, L. (2011). Korean honorifics and politeness in second language learning (Vol. 206). John Benjamins Publishing. Brown, L. (2013a). “Mind your own esteemed business”: Sarcastic honorifics use and impoliteness in Korean TV dramas. Journal of Politeness Research, 9(2), 159-186. Brown, L. (2013b). " Oppa, Hold My Purse:" A Sociocultural Study of Identity and Indexicality in the Perception and Use of Oppa'Older Brother'by Second Language Learners. Korean Language in America, 1-22. Brown, L., & Prieto, P. (2017). (Im) politeness: Prosody and gesture. In The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im) politeness(pp. 357-379). Palgrave Macmillan, London. Brown, L., & Winter, B. (2019). Multimodal indexicality in Korean:“Doing deference” and “performing intimacy” through nonverbal behavior. Journal of Politeness Research, 15(1), 25-54. Brown, L., Winter, B., Idemaru, K., & Grawunder, S. (2014). Phonetics and politeness: Perceiving Korean honorific and non-honorific speech through phonetic cues. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 45-60. Brown, P., Levinson, S. C., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge university press. Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1972). The pronouns of solidarity and power. Language and social context, 252-82. Bucholtz, M. (1999). “Why be normal?”: Language and identity practices in a community of nerd girls. Language in society, 28(2), 203-223. Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse studies, 7(4-5), 585-614. Bull, P. E. (2016). Posture & gesture (Vol. 16). Elsevier. Burgoon, J. K., & Saine, T. P. (1978). The unspoken dialogue: An introduction to nonverbal communication. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH). 147 Buss, K. A., & Kiel, E. J. (2004). Comparison of sadness, anger, and fear facial expressions when toddlers look at their mothers. Child development, 75(6), 1761- 1773. Busso, C., Deng, Z., Yildirim, S., Bulut, M., Lee, C. M., Kazemzadeh, A. & Narayanan, S. (2004, October). Analysis of emotion recognition using facial expressions, speech and multimodal information. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Multimodal interfaces (pp. 205-211). Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge. Byon, A. S. (2000). Teaching Korean honorifics. The Korean Language in America, 5, 275-289. Byon, A.S. (2004). Sociopragmatic analysis of Korean requests: Pedagogical settings. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(9), 1673–1704 Cameron, D. (1998). Performing gender identity. Language and gender: A reader, 270- 284. Carney, D. R., Hall, J. A., & LeBeau, L. S. (2005). Beliefs about the nonverbal expression of social power. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 29(2), 105-123. Chang, W. L. (2008). Australian and Chinese perceptions of (im)politeness in an intercultural apology. Griffith Working Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication, 1, 59–74. Chang, Y. F. (2009). How to say no: An analysis of cross-cultural difference and pragmatic transfer. Language Sciences, 31(4), 477-493. Chilton, P. (1990). Politeness, politics and diplomacy. Discourse & Society, 1(2), 201- 224. Choe, J. (2004). Obligatory honorification and the honorific feature. Studies in Generative Grammar 14 (4), 545–559. Choo, M. (2006). 11 The Structure and Use of Korean Honorifics. Korean language in culture and society, 132. 148 Chung, S. (2006). Hankwuke hakswupca-lul wihan damhwa pyoci yeongkwu: kulssey, com, mwe-lul cwungsim-ulo (A study on discourse markers for Korean language learners) MA Thesis, Sangmyeong University. Cohen, A. D. (2017). Teaching and learning second language pragmatics. Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, 3, 428-452. Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap… and Others Don’t. Colonnesi, C., Bögels, S. M., de Vente, W., & Majdandžić, M. (2013). What coy smiles say about positive shyness in early infancy. Infancy, 18(2), 202-220. Colston, H.L. (1997). “I’ve Never Seen Anything Like It”: Overstatement, Understatement, and Irony. Metaphor and Symbol 12 (1): 43–58. Cook, H. M. (1999). Why Can't Learners of Japanese as a Foreign Language Distinguish Polite from Impolite Speech Styles?. Creusere, M. A. (1999). Theories of adults' understanding and use of irony and sarcasm: Applications to and evidence from research with children. Developmental Review, 19(2), 213-262. Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of pragmatics, 25(3), 349-367. Culpeper, J. (2005). Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 1(1), 35-72. Culpeper, J. (2008). Reflections on impoliteness, relational work and power. Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice, 21, 17. Culpeper, J. (2011). It’s not what you said, it’s how you said it!”: Prosody and impoliteness. Discursive approaches to politeness, 57-83. Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D., & Wichmann, A. (2003). Impoliteness revisited: with special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of pragmatics, 35(10-11), 1545-1579. 149 Culpeper, J., & Haugh, M. (2014). Pragmatics and the English language. Macmillan International Higher Education. Culpeper, J., & Holmes, O. (2013). (Im) politeness and exploitative TV in Britain and North America: The X Factor and American Idol. In Real talk: Reality television and discourse analysis in action (pp. 169-198). Palgrave Macmillan UK. Culpeper, J., Marti, L., Mei, M., Nevala, M., & Schauer, G. (2010). Cross-cultural variation in the perception of impoliteness: A study of impoliteness events reported by students in England, China, Finland, Germany and Turkey. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(4), 597-624. D’Amico-Reisner, L. (1983). An analysis of the surface structure of disapproval exchanges. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 103–115 ). Rowley MA: Newbury House. Dash, P. (2004). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure: A definitional analysis with implications for classroom teaching. Asian EFL Journal, 6(3), 1-17. De Gagne, J. C., Kang, H. S., & Hyun, M. S. (2016). Psychometric properties of the Korean version of the incivility in nursing education‐revised (INE‐R) survey. Nursing & health sciences, 18(4), 425-434. DeSilva, D., Hemingway, J., Ranson, H., & Vaughan, A. (1997). Resistance to Insecticides in Insect Vectors of Disease: estα3, a Novel Amplified Esterase Associated with Amplifiedestβ1from Insecticide Resistant Strains of the MosquitoCulex quinquesfasciatus. Experimental parasitology, 87(3), 253-259. Dittman, A. T. (1972). The Body Relationship-Speech Rhythm Relationship as a cue to Speech Encoding. Nonverbal Communication-Readings with commentary. Dobs, A. M. (2014). Identities in conflict: Examining the co-construction of impoliteness and identity in classroom interaction. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 2(1), 36-73. Dobs, A. M., & Blitvich, P. G. C. (2013). Impoliteness in polylogal interaction: Accounting for face-threat witnesses’ responses. Journal of pragmatics, 53, 112- 130. 150 Donaghue, H. (2018). Relational work and identity negotiation in critical post observation teacher feedback. Journal of Pragmatics, 135, 101-116. Dews, S., Kaplan, J., & Winner, E. (1995). Why not say it directly? The social functions of irony. Discourse processes, 19(3), 347-367. Dews, S., & Winner, E. (1995). Why Not Say it Directly? The Social Functions of Irony. Discourse Processes 19: 347–367. Dynel, M. (2013). Impoliteness as disaffiliative humour in film talk. Developments in linguistic humour theory, 105-144. Dynel, M. (2015). The landscape of impoliteness research. Journal of politeness research, 11(2), 329-354. Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2011). “Please answer me as soon as possible”: Pragmatic failure in non-native speakers’e-mail requests to faculty. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(13), 3193-3215. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1972). Hand movements. Journal of communication, 22(4), 353-374. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1974). Nonverbal behavior and psychopathology. The psychology of depression: Contemporary theory and research, 3-31. Eelen, Gino (2001). Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St Martins Press. Eisenchlas, S. A. (2011). On-line interactions as a resource to raise pragmatic awareness. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 51–61. Ellis, R. (1999). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Eun, J. O., & Strauss, S. (2004). The primacy of information status in the alternation between deferential and polite forms in Korean public discourse. Language Sciences, 26(3), 251-272. Evans, P. (2012). Verbal abuse in the news and the arts. Retrieved from http://www.verbalabuse.com/page3/page10/page10.html 151 Fabri, M., Moore, D. J., & Hobbs, D. J. (2002). Face value: Towards emotionally expressive avatars. AISB02, Imperial College, London, UK. Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1989). Internal and external modification in interlanguage request realization. Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies, 221247. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change (Vol. 10). Cambridge: Polity press. Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power. Pearson Education. Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Routledge. Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, 2, 258-284. Francoeur, R. T., Noonan, R. J., Opiyo-Omolo, B., & Pastoetter, J. (2004). Female sexuality today: Challenging cultural repression. CrossCurrents, 55-71. Fraser, B., & Nolen, W. (1981). The association of deference with linguistic form. International journal of the Sociology of Language, 1981(27), 93-110. Freedman, N. (1977). Hands, words, and mind: On the structuralization of body movements during discourse and the capacity for verbal representation. In Communicative structures and psychic structures (pp. 109-132). Springer, Boston, MA. Freedman, N., Barroso, F., Bucci, W., & Grand, S. (1978). The bodily manifestations of listening. Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Thought, 1(1), 157-194. Frick, R. W. (1985). Communicating emotion: The role of prosodic features. Psychological Bulletin, 97(3), 412. Furman, M. (2011). Impoliteness and mock-impoliteness in Dom 2. In The Slavic Forum (pp. 1-22). Gallagher, D., & Shuntich, R. J. (1981). Encoding and decoding of nonverbal behavior through facial expressions. Journal of Research in Personality, 15(2), 241-252. 152 Garber, P., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2002). Gesture offers insight into problem-solving in adults and children. Cognitive Science, 26, 817–831. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P., Bou-Franch, P., & Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2013). Identity and impoliteness: The expert in the talent show Idol. Journal of Politeness Research, 9(1), 97-121. Giddens, A. (1991), Modernity and Self-Identity – Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Giora, R. (2003). On Our Mind: Salience, Context, and Figurative Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A. (2013). Words and meanings: Lexical semantics across domains, languages, and cultures. OUP Oxford. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: essays on face-to-face interaction. Goffman, E. (1972) ‘On Face-work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction’, pp. 5-46 in E. Goffman (ed.) Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face- toface Behaviour. London: The Penguin Press. Goldin-Meadow, S., Nusbaum, H., Kelly, S. D., & Wagner, S. (2001). Explaining math: Gesturing lightens the load. Psychological Science, 12(6), 516–522. Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press. Harrigan, J. A., Kues, J. R., & Weber, J. G. (1986). Impressions of hand movements: Self-touching and gestures. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63(2), 503-516. Harris, M. B. (1992). Sex, race, and experiences of aggression. Aggressive behavior, 18(3), 201-217. Harris, S. (2001). Being politically impolite: extending politeness theory to adversarial political discourse. Discourse & society, 12(4), 451-472. Hashemian, M. (2012). Cross-cultural differences and pragmatic transfer in English and Persian refusals. 153 Hatfield, H., & Hahn, J. W. (2011). What Korean apologies require of politeness theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1303-1317. Haugh, M. (2008). The discursive negotiation of international student identities. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 29(2), 207-222. Haugh, M. (2010). When is an email really offensive?: Argumentativity and variability in evaluations of impoliteness. Haugh, M., & Chang, W. L. M. (2015). Understanding im/politeness across cultures: an interactional approach to raising sociopragmatic awareness. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 53(4), 389-414. Holtgraves, T., & Yang, J. N. (1992). Interpersonal underpinnings of request strategies: General principles and differences due to culture and gender. Journal of personality and social psychology, 62(2), 246. Hong, W. (1996). An empirical study of Chinese request strategies. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 122(1), 127-138. Hutchby, I. (2008). Participants' orientations to interruptions, rudeness and other impolite acts in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 4(2), 221-241. Hymes, D. (1971). Competence and performance in linguistic theory. In R. Huxley & E. Ingram (Eds.), Language acquisition: Models and methods. London: Academic Press. Idemaru, K., Winter, B., & Brown, L. (2015). The role of pitch in perceiving politeness in Korean. In International Conference of Phonetic Sciences, Glasgow. Ito, T., & Watanabe, T. (2016, July). Motion control algorithm of ARM-COMS for entrainment enhancement. In International Conference on Human Interface and the Management of Information (pp. 339-346). Springer, Cham. Izard, C. E. (1990). Facial expressions and the regulation of emotions. Journal of personality and social psychology, 58(3), 487. Jabson, J., Venkatraman, S., & Dishion, T. (2003). The simple affect coding system. Unpublished, available from Child & Family Center, 195. 154 Jaworski, A. (1994). Pragmatic failure in a second language: Greeting responses in English by Polish students. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 32(1), 41-56. Jaworski, A., & Galasiński, D. (2000). Vocative address forms and ideological legitimization in political debates. Discourse studies, 2(1), 35-53. Junhua, H., & Xinren, C. (2010). Impoliteness in Reality Show A Pragmatic Account. Nanjing University: School of Foreign Studies. Jung, E. (2005). Kwuke uymwnsa mwe-uy uymi pwunsek (The study of an interrogative mwe in Korean). Kyeleyemwunhak 35: 109-131. Kádár, D. Z., & Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding politeness. Cambridge University Press. Kasper, G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Interlanguage studies bulletin (Utrecht), 8(3), 203- 231. Kasper, G. (1997). The role of pragmatics in language teacher education. Beyond methods: Components of second language teacher education, 113-136. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (Eds.). (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Ernst Klett Sprachen. Kecskés, I. (2012). Interculturality and intercultural pragmatics. In The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication (pp. 85-102). Routledge. Keltner, D., Capps, L., Kring, A. M., Young, R. C., & Heerey, E. A. (2001). Just teasing: A conceptual analysis and empirical review. Psychological bulletin, 127(2), 229. Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge University Press. Kienpointner, M. (1997). Varieties of rudeness: Types and functions of impolite utterances. Functions of language, 4(2), 251-287. Kienpointner, M. (2008). Cortesía, emociones y argumentación. Cortesía y Conversación: de lo escrito a lo oral, 25-52. Kiesling, S. F. (2004). Dude. American speech, 79(3), 281-305. 155 Kim, J. B., & Sells, P. (2007). Korean honorification: A kind of expressive meaning. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 16(4), 303-336. Kita, S. (2009). Cross-cultural variation of speech-accompanying gesture: A review. Language and cognitive processes, 24(2), 145-167. Kita, S., & Essegbey, J. (2001). Pointing left in Ghana: How a taboo on the use of the left hand influences gestural practice. Gesture, 1(1), 73-95. Knapp, M. L., & Hall, J. A. (2009). Nonverbal communication in human interaction.(7th ed.). Boston: Wadsworth Koehne, N. (2005). (Re) construction: Ways international students talk about their identity. Australian journal of education, 49(1), 104-119. Koike, D. A. (1989). Pragmatic competence and adult L2 acquisition: Speech acts in interlanguage. The Modern Language Journal, 73(3), 279-289. Kress, G. (2013). Multimodal discourse analysis. In The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 61-76). Routledge. Kroskrity, P. (1999). Identity. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 9(1–2), 111–14 Lakoff, R. T. (1989). The limits of politeness: Therapeutic and courtroom discourse. Multilingua-Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 8(2-3), 101-130. Lakoff, R. T. (2005). Civility and its discontents: Or, getting in your face. PRAGMATICS AND BEYOND NEW SERIES, 139, 23. Lee, C. J., & Katz, A. N. (1998). The differential role of ridicule in sarcasm and irony. Metaphor and symbol, 13(1), 1-15. Lee, H. S. (1999). A discourse-pragmatic analysis of the committal-ci in Korean: A synthetic approach to the form-meaning relation. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(2), 243-275. Lee, S. E. (2002). Sexual harassment in Korean organisations (Doctoral dissertation, University of York). 156 Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman. Leech, G. (2014). The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Leeds‐Hurwitz, W. (1987). The social history of the natural history of an interview: A multidisciplinary investigation of social communication. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 20(1-4), 1-51. Li Jia & Zhu Shanshan (2008) TÉLÉVISÉS, T. S. D. L. P., & DE DIVERTISSEMENT, D. C. Sexual Teasing in Chinese Entertaining TV Programs. Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture. Liu, C., Ishi, C. T., Ishiguro, H., & Hagita, N. (2012, March). Generation of nodding, head tilting and eye gazing for human-robot dialogue interaction. In Human- Robot Interaction (HRI), 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on (pp. 285-292). IEEE. LoCastro, V. (1986). Yes, I Agree with You, But...: Agreement and Disagreement in Japanese and American English. Locher, M. A. (2006). Polite behavior within relational work: The discursive approach to politeness. Locher, M. A. (2004). Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Language, 1600- 1800. Locher, M. A. (2011). Situated impoliteness: The interface between relational work and identity construction. Situated politeness, 187-208. Locher, M. A., & Bousfield, D. (2008). Introduction: Impoliteness and power in language (No. 21, pp. 1-13). Mouton de Gruyter. Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 1(1), 9-33. Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2008). Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour (No. 21, pp. 77-99). Mouton de Gruyter 157 Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2007). politeness and the Spanish media: The case of audience participation debates. Research on politeness in the Spanish-speaking world, 145, 166. Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2009). “You're barking mad, I'm out”: Impoliteness and broadcast talk. Lorenzo-Dus, N., Bou-Franch, P., & Blitvich, P. G. C. (2013). Impoliteness in US/UK talent shows: A diachronic study of evolution of a genre. Real talk: Reality television and discourse analysis in action, 199-217. Maeshiba, N., Yoshinaga, N., Kasper, G., & Ross, S. (1996). Transfer and proficiency. In S. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.). Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language (pp. 155-187). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Martinez, J. S. (2005). Inherent executive power: A comparative perspective. Yale LJ, 115, 2480. Martínez-Flor, A., & Fukuya, Y. J. (2005). The effects of instruction on learners’ production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. System, 33(3), 463-480. Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of pragmatics, 12(4), 403-426. McKinnon, S., & Prieto, P. (2014). The role of prosody and gesture in the perception of mock impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research, 10(2), 185-219. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind. Chicago, IL: Chicago of University Press. Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages (Vol. 8, No. 152, p. 30). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Meier, A. J. (1995). Defining politeness: Universality in appropriateness. Language Sciences, 17(4), 345-356. Mendoza-Denton, N. (2002). 19 Language and Identity (p. 475). Wiley-Blackwell. Millim, K. (2011). The role of the government in cultural industry: Some observations from Korea’s experience. Keio communication review, 33, 163-182. Mills, S. (2002). Rethinking politeness, impoliteness and gender identity (Vol. 89). 69J. 158 Mills, S. (2005). Gender and politeness. Mills, S. (2011). Discursive approaches to politeness and impoliteness. Discursive approaches to politeness, 8, 19. Mitra, S., & Acharya, T. (2007). Gesture recognition: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), 37(3), 311- 324. Moerman, M. (1993). Ariadne's thread and Indra's net: Reflections on ethnography, ethnicity, identity, culture, and interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(1), 85-98. Mondada, L. (2016). Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(3), 336-366. Morford, J. (1997). Social indexicality in French pronominal address. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 7(1), 3-37. Mugford, G. (2008). How rude! Teaching impoliteness in the second-language classroom. ELT journal, 62(4), 375-384. Mullany, L. (2002). I don’t think you want me to get a word in edgeways do you John? Re-assessing (im) politeness, language and gender in political broadcast interviews. English Studies: Working Papers on the Web, 3. Mullany, L. (2008). “Stop hassling me!” Impoliteness, power and gender identity in the professional workplace. LANGUAGE POWER AND SOCIAL PROCESS, 21, 231. Mumby, D. K., & Clair, R. P. (1997). Organizational discourse. Discourse as social interaction, 2, 181-205. Nam, S. (2008). The politics of ‘compressed development' in new media: a history of Korean cable television, 1992—2005. Media, Culture & Society, 30(5), 641-661. Nelson, G., Al-Batal, M., & Echols, E. (1996). Arabic and English compliment responses: Potential for pragmatic failure. Applied linguistics, 17(4), 411-432. 159 Nobe, S. (2000). Where do most spontaneous representational gestures actually occur with respect to speech. Language and gesture, 2, 186. Ochs, E. (1992). 14 Indexing gender. Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, 11, 335. O’Driscoll, J. (2011). Some issues with the concept of face: when, what, how and how much?. In Politeness across cultures (pp. 17-41). Palgrave Macmillan, London. O’Halloran, K. L. (2011). Multimodal discourse analysis. Companion to discourse, 120- 137. Oh, C. (2015). Queering spectatorship in K-pop: The androgynous male dancing body and western female fandom. The Journal of Fandom Studies, 3(1), 59-78. Ohala, J. J. (1994). The frequency code underlies the sound-symbolic use of voice pitch. Sound symbolism. Ohara, Y., & Saft, S. (2003). Using conversation analysis to track gender ideologies in social interaction: toward a feminist analysis of a Japanese phone-in consultation TV program. Discourse & Society, 14(2), 153-172. Ohta, A. S. (2005). Interlanguage pragmatics in the zone of proximal development. System, 33(3), 503-517. Okamoto, S. (2002). Politeness and the perception of irony: Honorifics in Japanese. Metaphor and Symbol, 17(2), 119-139. Okushi, Y. (1998). Use of Japanese Honorifics in Daily Life: What the Traditional Theories Do Not Say. Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. (1989). Speech act behavior across languages. In H. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.). Transfer in language production (pp. 53-67). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Olshtain, E., & Weinbach, L. (1985). Complaints-A study of speech act behavior among native and nonnative speakers of Hebrew. Tel Aviv University. Orie, Ọ. Ọ. (2009). Pointing the Yoruba way. Gesture, 9(2), 237-261. 160 Pease, B., & Pease, A. (2008). The definitive book of body language: The hidden meaning behind people's gestures and expressions. Bantam. Penman, R. (1990). Facework and politeness: Multiple goals in courtroom discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 9 (1/2): 15–39. Perez de Ayala, S. (2001). FTAs and Erskine May: conflicting needs?—Politeness in Question Time. Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2): 143–170. Pickering, M. (2001). Stereotyping: The politics of representation. Palgrave. Pizziconi, B. (2003). Re-examining politeness, face and the Japanese language. Journal of pragmatics, 35, 1471-1506. Pizziconi, B. (2011). Honorifics: The cultural specificity of a universal mechanism in Japanese. Politeness in East Asia, 45-70. Poole, K. L., & Schmidt, L. A. (2019). Smiling through the shyness: The adaptive function of positive affect in shy children. Emotion, 19(1), 160. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/ dispreferred twin shapes. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures in social action (pp. 57–101). Cambridge University Press. Reddy, V. (2001). Positively shy! Developmental continuities in the expression of shyness, coyness, and embarrassment. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Rieger, C. L. (2015). politeness and L2 socialization: Using reactions from online fora to a world leader’s ‘impolite’behavior. Teaching and learning (im) politeness, 79- 111. Sacks, H. (1984). Notes on methodology. Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 21-27. Sarangi, S., & Roberts, C. (1999). The dynamics of interactional and institutional orders in work-related settings. Talk, work and institutional order: Discourse in medical, mediation and management settings, 1, 1-57. 161 Savran, A., Alyüz, N., Dibeklioğlu, H., Çeliktutan, O., Gökberk, B., Sankur, B., & Akarun, L. (2008, May). Bosphorus database for 3D face analysis. In European Workshop on Biometrics and Identity Management (pp. 47-56). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Shim, Y. H. (2001). Feminism and the discourse of sexuality in Korea: Continuities and changes. Human Studies, 24(1-2), 133-148. Shim, Y. H. (1996) 'Han-Kook-ui Seong-Dam-Lon-ui JI-Sok gwa Beon-Dong' (Feminism and Sexuality in Korea: Continuities and changes in Sexual discourses) Yeo- Seong Yeon-Ku (Korean Women’s review) Vol. 51 Shim, Young-Hee (1998) Wi-Heom-Sa-Heo-iva Seong-Pok-Neok (Sexual Violence in a risk societ), Seoul: Na-Narn Publications Shin, Seong-Ja(1993), 'Jlk-Jang-e-seo Bal-Saeng-Ha-neun Seong-jeok Seong-Ga-Slmui Yoo-Hyung-e gwan-han-Yeon-Ku" ( An Analysis of types of sexual harassment within Korean workplaces), Sa-Hoe-Gwa-Hak Yeon-Ku (A review of Korean Social Science), Vol. 5 Seoul: The Institution of Korean Social Science Sidnell, J. (2008). 14 Constructing and Managing Male Exclusivity in Talk-in- interaction (Vol. 25, p. 327). John Wiley & Sons. Siegal, M. (1996). The role of learner subjectivity in second language sociolinguistic competency: Western women learning Japanese. Applied linguistics, 17(3), 356- 382. Sifianou, M. (2011). On the concept of face and politeness. In Politeness across cultures (pp. 42-58). Palgrave Macmillan, London. Silverstein, M. (1976). Shifters, linguistic categories and cultural description. In K. Basso & H. Selby (Eds.), Meaning in anthropology , 1 1-55. Albuquerque: University of N Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language & communication, 23(3-4), 193-229. Singh, R. K. (2012). Humour, irony and satire in literature. International Journal of English and Literature, 3(4), 63-72. 162 Sohn, H. M. (2001). The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Spencer-Oatey, H. (1996). Reconsidering power and distance. Journal of pragmatics, 26(1). Spencer-Oatey, H. (2002). Article Title: Managing rapport in talk: Using rapport sensitive incidents to explore the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations Year of publication: 2002 Link to published version. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 529-545. Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed.). (2004). Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures. A&C Black. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005). (Im) Politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2007). Theories of identity and the analysis of face. Journal of pragmatics, 39(4), 639-656. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2011). Conceptualising ‘the relational’in pragmatics: Insights from metapragmatic emotion and (im) politeness comments. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(14), 3565-3578. Spiers, J. A. (1998). The use of face work and politeness theory. Qualitative Health Research, 8(1), 25-47. Tajeddin, Z., Alemi, M., & Razzaghi, S. (2014). Cross-cultural Perceptions of Impoliteness by Native English Speakers and EFL Learners: The Case of Apology Speech Act. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 43(4), 304-326. Takahashi, S. (1996). Pragmatic Transferability. Studies in Second language Acquisition, 18(2), 188-224. Takahashi, S., & DuFon, P. (1989). Cross-linguistic influence in indirectness: The case of English directives performed by native Japanese speakers. Unpublished manuscript, University of Hawai'i at Manoa. Honolulu. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 370 439) 163 Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. (1986). ESL teachers’ evaluation of pragmatic vs. grammatical errors. CUNY Forum, 12, 172–203. Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and discourse. Oxford University Press. Tannen, D. (1995). The power of talk: Who gets heard and why. Harvard Business Review, 73(5), 138-148. Terkourafi, M. (2005). Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Terkourafi, M. (2008). Toward a unified theory of politeness, impoliteness, and rudeness. Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Prac-tice, Derek Bousfield and Miriam A. Locher (eds), 45-74. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied linguistics, 4(2), 91-112. Thomas, J. (1984). Cross-cultural discourse as “unequal encounter”: Towards a pragmatic analysis. Applied Linguistics, 5, 226–235. Toplak, M., & Katz, A. N. (2000). On the uses of sarcastic irony. Journal of pragmatics, 32(10), 1467-1488. Turner, K. (2003). Wx= D (S, H)+ P (H, S)+ Rx (notes towards an investigation). Revue de sémantique et pragmatique, (13), 47-67. Utsumi, A. (2004). Stylistic and contextual effects in irony processing. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 26, No. 26). Van Dijk, T. (1991). Racism and the press. London: Routledge Varghese, M., Morgan, B., Johnston, B., & Johnson, K. A. (2005). Theorizing language teacher identity: Three perspectives and beyond. Journal of language, Identity, and Education, 4(1), 21-44. Wang, H. S. (1995). The impact of family background on the acquisition of Korean honorifics. Korean Language in America, 197-211. Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: CUP. 164 Watts, R. J. (2005). Linguistics Politeness Research: Quo Vadis. Politeness in Language: Studies in Its History, Theory and Practice (2nd edn), Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory Cam-bridge. MA: Blackwell. West, C., Lazar, M. M., & Kramarae, C. (1997). Gender in discourse. Sage Publications. Wodak, R. (Ed.). (1989). Language, power and ideology: Studies in political discourse (Vol. 7). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Wodak, R. (1996). The genesis of racist discourse in. Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis, 107. Yoo, S. Y. (1996). Kwuke chengca taywu emi-uy kyochey sayong (switching)-kwa chengca taywupep cheykyey—him (power)-kwa yutay (solidarity)-uy ceng- toseng-ey uyhan tamhwa pwunsekcek cepkun. Korean Speech Style Shifting and Speech Style Organisation: A Discourse Analysis Approach Focusing on Power and Solidarity], PhD thesis, Korea University. Yoon, S. (2015). Semantic constraint and pragmatic nonconformity for expressives: compatibility condition on slurs, epithets, anti-honorifics, intensifiers, and mitigators. Language Sciences, 52, 46-69. Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics: Oxford University Press. Zajdman, A. (1995). Humorous face-threatening acts: Humor as strategy. Journal of Pragmatics, 23(3), 325-339. 165