Cover not available
Article published In:
Internet Pragmatics
Vol. 2:2 (2019) ► pp.233–259

Agency and impoliteness in Korean online interactions

| McMaster University
| Monash University

(Im)politeness research has often focused either on the importance of social norms or on the intentions of the speaker, with the active role of the listener in assigning social meanings overlooked. This limitation particularly applies to so-called “discernment languages” such as Korean and Japanese. The current paper addresses this gap by offering a small-scale qualitative study of recipient agency in Korean naturally occurring computer-mediated communication (CMC). The data analyzed includes 14 text messages between the recipient (the proprietor of an online food business) and his customer, which were posted on a blog that he owned and operated. We focus on how the recipient agentively evaluates the language usage of the customer, including inconsistent evaluations of her use of non-honorific language, or panmal. The results suggest that the instability of (im)politeness interpretations cannot be explained solely by social norms or intentions but should also include the socially-mediated agency of the recipient.

Keywords: agency, (im)politeness, integrative pragmatics, CMC, Korean
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.(Im)politeness in Korean
    • 2.1Honorific versus non-honorific speech
    • 2.2Address and reference terms
    • 2.3The metalanguage of Korean (im)politeness
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Interaction one
    • 4.2Interaction two
    • 4.3Interaction three
    • 4.4Interaction four
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 October 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00036.kim
References
Ahearn, Laura M.
2001 “Language and agency.” Annual Review of Anthropology 301: 109–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 Living Language: An Introduction to Linguistic Anthropology (2nd. edn.). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Androutsopoulos, Jannis K.
2000 “Non-standard spellings in media texts: The case of German fanzines.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 4(4): 514–533. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Angouri, Jo, and Theodora Tseliga
2010 “ ‘you HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!’: From e-disagreement to e-impoliteness in two online fora.” Journal of Politeness Research 6(1): 57–82.Google Scholar
Brown, Lucien
2011 Korean Honorifics and Politeness in Second Language Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013a “ ‘Mind your own esteemed business’: Sarcastic honorifics use and impoliteness in Korean TV dramas.” Journal of Politeness Research 9(2): 159–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013b “Teaching ‘casual’ and/or ‘impolite’ language through multimedia: the case of non-honorific panmal speech styles in Korea.” Culture and Curriculum 26(1): 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013c “ ‘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 181: 1–22.Google Scholar
2015 “Revisiting ‘polite’ -yo and ‘deferential’ -supnita speech style shifting in Korean from the view point of indexicality.” Journal of Pragmatics 791: 43–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “An activity-theoretic study of agency and identity in the study abroad experiences of a lesbian nontraditional learner of Korea.” Applied Linguistics 37(6): 807–828.Google Scholar
Brown, Lucien, and Bodo Winter
2019 “Multimodal indexicality in Korean: Doing deference and performing intimacy through nonverbal behavior.” Journal of Politeness Research 15(1): 25–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Lucien, Bodo Winter, Kaori Idemaru, and Sven Grawunder
2014 “Phonetics and politeness: Perceiving Korean honorific and non-honorific speech through phonetic cues.” Journal of Pragmatics 661: 45–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
1978 “Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena.” In Questions and Politeness, ed. by Esther N. Goody, 56–311. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Byon, Andrew S.
2006 “The role of linguistic indirectness and honorifics in achieving linguistic politeness in Korean requests.” Journal of Politeness Research 2(2): 247–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Choo, Miho
2006 “The structure and use of Korean honorifics.” In Korean Language in Culture and Society, ed. by Ho-min Sohn, 132–154. Hawaii: University of Hawaii Pres.Google Scholar
Chun, Sun Young
2014 “Features and strategies of Korean EFL elementary school children’s email discourse.” STEM Journal 15(1): 197–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cook, Haruko M.
2011 “Are honorifics polite? Uses of referent honorifics in a Japanese committee meeting.” Journal of Pragmatics 43(15): 3655–3672. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “A scientist or salesman? Identity construction through referent honorifics on a Japanese shopping channel program.” Multilingua 32(2): 177–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, and Michael Haugh
2014 Pragmatics and the English Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunn, Cynthia
2005 “Pragmatic functions of humble forms in Japanese ceremonial discourse.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 15(2): 218–238.Google Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro
2004 “Agency in language.” In A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, ed. by Alessandro Duranti, 451–473. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dynel, Marta
2012 “Swearing methodologically: the (im)politeness of expletives in anonymous commentaries on Youtube.” Journal of English Studies 101: 25–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eelen, Gino
2001 A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Graham, Sage
2007 “Disagreeing to agree: Conflict, (im)politeness and identity in a computer-mediated community.” Journal of Pragmatics 391: 742–759. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 “Impoliteness and the moral order in online gaming.” Internet Pragmatics 1(2): 303–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael
2007 “The discursive challenge to politeness research: An interactional alternative.” Journal of Politeness Research 3(3): 295–317.Google Scholar
2010 “When is an email really offensive?: Argumentativity and variability in evaluations of impoliteness.” Journal of Politeness Research 6(1): 7–3. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael, and Wei-Lin M. Chang
2019 “ ‘The apology seemed (in)sincere’: Variability in perceptions of (im)politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics 1421: 207–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harrison, Sandra
2006 “Transgressions, miscommunication and flames: Problematic incidents in email discussion.” In Internet Research Annual, ed. by Mia Consalvo, and Caroline Haythornthwaite, 105–117. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Herring, Susan C.
2007 “A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse.” Language@Internet 4(1). [URL] (accessed 8 March 2016).Google Scholar
Hwang, Juck-ryoon
1990 “ ‘Deference’ versus ‘politeness’ in Korean speech.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 821: 41–55.Google Scholar
Ide, Sachiko
1989 “Formal forms and discernment.” Multilingua 8(2): 223–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kádár, Dániel Z., and Michael Haugh
2013 Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kádár, Dániel Z., and Sara Mills
2011 “Introduction.” In Politeness in East Asia, ed. by Dániel Z. Kádár, and Sara Mills, 1–17. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Eun Young A., and Lucien Brown
2014 “Negotiating pragmatic competence in computer-mediated communication: The case of Korean address terms.” CALICO Journal 3(3): 264–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Hyun-Oak A.
2011 “Politeness in Korea.” In Politeness in East Asia, eds. by Dániel Z. Kádár, and Sara Mills, 176–207. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim-Renaud, Young-Key
1990 “On Panmal in Korean.” In ICKL 7: Papers from the Seventh International Conference on Korean Linguistics, 232–255. Osaka: ICKL and Osaka University of Economics and Law.Google Scholar
Lantolf, James, and Aneta Pavlenko
2001 “ ‘(S)econd (l)anguage (a)ctivity theory: understanding second language learners as people.” In Learner Contributions to Language Learning: New Directions in Research, ed. by Michael Breen, 141–158. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lantolf, James, and Steven Thorne
2006 Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Iksop, and Robert Ramsey
2000 The Korean Language. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Jung-bok
2001 Kweke kyengepep sayong-uy cenlyakcek thukseng [The Characteristics of Korean Honorific Strategic Use]. Seoul: Thaehaksa.Google Scholar
2009 Intheneys thongsin ene-uy hwaksan-kwa hankwuke yenkwu-uy hwaktay [The Spread of Internet Communication and the Expansion of Korean Language Research]. Seoul: Sotong.Google Scholar
Lo, Adrienne
2009 “Lessons about respect and affect in a Korean heritage language school.” Linguistics and Education 20(3): 217–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mills, Sara
2003 Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Nathaniel, and Michael Haugh
2015 “Agency, accountability and evaluations of impoliteness.” Journal of Politeness Research 11(2): 207–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oh, Sun-Young
2007 “The interactional meanings of quasi-pronouns in Korean conversation.” In Person Reference in Interaction, ed. by Nick J. Enfield, and Tanya Stivers, 203–225. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2010 “Invoking categories through co-present person reference: The case of Korean conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 42(5): 1219–1242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Park, Chongwon
2010 “(Inter) subjectification and Korean honorifics.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 11(1): 122–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pasfield-Neofitou, Sarah
2007 “Textual features of intercultural Internet chat between learners of Japanese and English.” CALL-EJ Online 9(1). [URL] (accessed 2 Mey 2018).Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita
2012 “Do participants’ reports enhance conversation analytic claims? Explanations of one sort or another.” Discourse Studies 14(4): 499–505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reiter, Rosina M., and Sara Orthaber
2018 “Exploring the moral compass: Denunciations in a Facebook carpool group.” Internet Pragmatics 1(2): 242–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinkeviciute, Valeria
2018 ““Ya bloody drango!!!”: Impoliteness as situated moral judgement on Facebook.” Internet Pragmatics 1(2): 272–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strauss, Susan, and Jong Oh Eun
2005 “Indexicality and honorific speech level choice in Korean.” Linguistics 43(3): 611–651. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina
2005 “Beyond the micro-level in politeness research.” Journal of Politeness Research 1(2): 237–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Upadhyay, Shiv
2010 “Identity and impoliteness in computer-mediated reader responses.” Journal of Politeness Research 6(1): 105–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watts, Richard J.
1989 “Relevance and relational work: linguistic politeness as politic behavior.” Multilingua 8(2):131–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yeon, Jaehoon, and Lucien Brown
2011 Korean: A Comprehensive Grammar. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Yoon, Kyung-Joo
2004 “Not just words: Korean social models and the use of honorifics.” Intercultural Pragmatics 1(2): 189–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yoon, Sang-Seok
2015 “Korean honorifics beyond politeness markers: Change of footing through shifting of speech style.” In Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Im/politeness, ed. by Marina Terkourafi, 97–119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Brown, Lucien, Soung-U Kim & Hyunji Kim
2023. The embodied enactment of politeness metapragmatics. Journal of Politeness Research 19:1 ► pp. 149 ff. DOI logo
Robertson, Wesley Cooper
2022. Register phenomena as international news: risk, register, and translation in Japanese coverage of quotes from the 2020 US presidential debate. Continuum 36:3 ► pp. 448 ff. DOI logo
Xie, Chaoqun
2021. Philosophizing (Im)politeness: Lived Experience, Desire and Human Nature. In The Philosophy of (Im)politeness [Advances in (Im)politeness Studies, ], ► pp. 225 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.