Self-denigration as a relational strategy in lingua franca talk: Asian English speakers

Journal of Pragmatics 139 (2019) 40e51

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Pragmatics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

Self-denigration as a relational strategy in lingua franca talk: Asian English speakers Ian Walkinshaw*, Nathaniel Mitchell, Sophiaan Subhan School of Humanities, Languages and Social Science, Griffith University, 170 Kessels Road, Nathan, QLD 4111, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 2 May 2018 Received in revised form 22 October 2018 Accepted 22 October 2018

This paper examines how Asian speakers of English as a lingua franca employ selfdenigration as a relational strategy (i.e. contributing to the ongoing management of interpersonal relationships) in talk-in-interaction. The study applies a protocol informed by conversation analysis to illuminate the relational functions of self-denigration and the prosodic and paralinguistic features that help to accomplish these. The data indicate that self-denigration in the ACE corpus tends to occur in informal, non-role-assigning, nontask-focused interactions. It may present as a first-turn stand-alone utterance, or as a precursor to a speaker's positive self-evaluation, where it serves a downplaying function. It also occurs as a second turn in response to an interlocutor's praise, criticism, or neutral statement. In terms of its relational functions, self-denigration may perform a face-saving, face-maintaining, or even face-enhancing role for the producer and/or other interlocutors. It may also be employed to generate shared humour, promoting a sense of in-group solidarity among the participants. Finally, it may perform a socially moderating function e particularly in reaction to a praising utterance e wherein a speaker uses self-denigration to appear modest rather than inappropriately vain. Several such functions may be served simultaneously. © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Asian English speakers English as a lingua franca Face Humour Relational strategies Self-denigration

1. Introduction The focus in this paper is on self-denigration as a relational strategy, i.e. contributing to the ongoing moment-by-moment management of relationships during an interaction. It explores how self-denigration functions to maintain or enhance relational rapport among speakers of English as a lingua franca (ELF), that is, English as a vehicular language used among interactants without a shared first language (Mauranen, 2006). The site for analysis is the Asian Corpus of English (ACE), a dataset of ELF settings populated by Asian speakers of English. Self-denigration in Asia has been explored elsewhere, but the focus has generally been on first language speakers, particularly of Chinese (e.g. Gu, 1990; Mao, 1994), Japanese (e.g. Itakura and Tsui, 2011), or Korean (e.g. Kim, 2014). There is very little research exploring Asian speakers of English as a lingua franca specifically. This is a crucial gap because ELF research has identified important differences in how lingua franca interactions are realised compared to first language talk, which we now outline. Firstly, unlike interactions between first-language users, ELF interactions normally encompass more than one first language and first culture e hence Knapp's (2011) characterisation of ELF as a nexus of language and culture. From a

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: i.walkinshaw@griffith.edu.au (I. Walkinshaw), n.mitchell@griffith.edu.au (N. Mitchell), s.subhan@griffith.edu.au (S. Subhan). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.10.013 0378-2166/© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

I. Walkinshaw et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 139 (2019) 40e51

41

pragmatic viewpoint, this linguistic and cultural plurality accounts for variation in interactants' sociopragmatic judgements of appropriateness and in their pragmalinguistic realisations of speech acts, and the issues these create for negotiating norms of appropriate speech behaviour. Secondly, there may be variations in interactants' English language competence. This factor accounts for one of the hallmarks of ELF communication: A preparedness for mutual disturbance in communication (Mauranen, 2006), and a mutual willingness to activate additional interactional or metadiscursive resources to facilitate comprehension, such as self-repair, clarification, repetition, reformulation, co-construction of meaning (Lichtkoppler, 2007; Mauranen, 2007), accommodation (Cogo, 2009), and/or mediation (wherein a co-participant starts rephrasing another participant's turn that was addressed to a third party) (Hynninen, 2011). Finally, research has identified certain pragmatic strategies which facilitate comprehension and interactional rapport in ELF talk: Co-construction of interim interactional norms as required (Meierkord, 2000; Seidlhofer, 2011), irrespective of interactants' extant cultural or linguistic background; suspension of judgements about the correctness and/or appropriateness of utterances or linguistic items (Seidlhofer, 2002); tolerance of unusual linguistic behaviour such as phonological, syntactic, or lexical inconsistencies (Kaur, 2009; Leszny
ak, 2002); avoidance of complex or idiomatic language (Mauranen, 2006); and the ‘let it pass’ principle (Firth, 1996), wherein unclear content may be allowed to proceed unchecked in the presumption that the producer will presently clarify their meaning. A preference for ‘safe’ (i.e. not sensitive or oppositional) topics has also been noted (Meierkord, 2000). To address the gap in knowledge of pragmatic strategies of Asian speakers of English as a lingua franca, we propose the following research questions: 1. How do interactants in an Asian ELF corpus dataset perform self-denigration (a) as a first turn; and (b) as a response to a prior turn? 2. What relational functions may self-denigration perform in Asian ELF interactions? Our definition of self-denigration draws on elements of three parallel (though subtly different) definitions to create an amalgam which we feel usefully represents our key theme. First is Gu's (1990) notion of self-denigration, wherein the individual: a) denigrates the self (i.e. modesty); and b) elevates the other (i.e. respectfulness). (We will explore Gu's theorisation further in Section 2.1.). Second is Kim's (2014) notion of self-deprecation, wherein ‘speakers lower or humble themselves toward their addressees’ (p. 82). Last is Yu's (2013) self-mockery, which he defines as ‘playfully belittling oneself for various reasons’ (p. 1). From a relational perspective, the three terms are alike in mentioning lowering, humbling, denigrating, and belittling oneself to one's interlocutor. There are also points of difference: Gu's (1990) selfdenigration incorporates other-respect, which is not explicit in the other two definitions. Yu's (2013) characterisation of self-mockery as ‘playful’ is also distinct since it connotes a jocular intent which is not indicated in Gu's or Kim's definition. We label our composite theorisation self-denigration, this being a common nomenclature in studies of this type (cf. Boxer
s-Conde, 1997; Habib, 2008; Norrick, 1993; Schnurr and Chan, 2011). Our theorisation incorporates humbling or and Corte lowering oneself to one's interlocutor, as well as displaying other-respect. It also acknowledges that deployment can be serious or jocular in intent. This article first summarises some of the core research into self-denigration in Asian contexts, and then outlines the current dataset and the analytical frameworks employed to explore how the interactions play out and the relational goals which the instances of self-denigration may seek to advance. The latter part of the article explores representative instances of self-denigration in talk-in-interaction among Asian ELF speakers, specifically: (1) as a first-turn, stand-alone action; (2) as a first-turn action preceding self-praise; (3) as a second-turn action in response to others' praise; (4) as a second-turn action responding to criticism; and (5) as a second-turn action responding to a neutral statement or question. 2. Literature on self-denigration Before we look in detail about how self-denigration manifests in social interactions among Asian speakers of English in the ACE dataset, we need to explore how self-denigration has been theorised in the literature, particularly in Asian contexts. Studies to date have tended to theorise self-denigration as: (1) a morality-based maxim of social interaction; (2) a face-saving measure; or (3) a mechanism for generating shared amusement. We will examine each theorisation in turn. 2.1. Self-denigration as a moral maxim We look first at Gu's (1990) theorisation of self-denigration as a morality-based maxim of interaction, part of his superordinate Politeness Principle. Gu suggests that in Chinese culture an individual's social behaviour is shaped by societal expectations founded on Confucianism. Gu's self-denigration maxim, which draws on Leech's (1983) modesty maxim to minimise self-praise and maximise self-dispraise, comprises two sub-maxims: Denigrate the self; and elevate the other. To breach the first sub-maxim, i.e. to denigrate the other, is likely to be perceived as impolite or rude, while to breach the second, i.e. to elevate the self, may be perceived as arrogant, boasting, or self-conceited (Chen, 1993). Research into compliment responses in Chinese (e.g. Chen, 1993; Chen and Yang, 2010; Tang and Zhang, 2009; Yu, 2003; Yu, 2013) argues that when compliments are responded to with self-denigration the recipient may be adhering to the sub-maxim of ‘denigrating the self’

42

I. Walkinshaw et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 139 (2019) 40e51

so as to downplay the esteem paid them, avoid the implication of thinking too much of themselves, and reinforce their relationship with their complimenters. Rather than actually lacking self-esteem, they may simply be observing a social norm regulating their speech behaviour. The payoff is that the compliment recipient's face is maintained or enhanced through projecting a humble, modest self-image in the face of praise (Chen, 1993). Of course, an addressee's rejection of an offered compliment might occasion offense by its producer. Such instances are rare in ACE however, at least insofar as can be discerned from corpus data, which is not intended for probing emotions. The paucity is partly attributable to shared (though largely unconscious) adherence to the self-denigration maxim as part of a localised moral order (Garfinkel, 1967). That is, compliment producers may find rejection an acceptable or even preferred response (Pomerantz, 1978) due to the social value placed on modesty (Gu, 1990). 2.2. Face-saving Yu's (2013) study of self-denigration identifies a face-saving function for interactants. In the first case, speakers protect their own face through self-denigration to help overcome temporary embarrassment. In the second, speakers may employ a self-denigration strategy to save the face of their recipients by exposing their own weakness compared (favourably) to those of the recipient. We need to unpack the notion of ‘face’ because its definition in relation to Asian societies has been the focus of some debate. The most established conceptualisation comes from Brown and Levinson (1987: 61), who draw on Goffman's earlier (1967) model, framing face as ‘the public self-image that every member wants to claim for [him/her] self’. It consists of negative face (the right to independence of action and freedom from imposition or distraction by others); and positive face (the desire that one's self-image be appreciated and approved of by others). However, scholars in China (Gu, 1990; Mao, 1994), Korea (Kim, 2014) and Japan (Ide, 2005; Matsumoto, 1988) argue that Brown and Levinson's (1987) model is a poor fit for their particular contexts. These scholars view the interactional focus as less on an individual actor's needs and desires and more on one's position in relation to the wider group and their acceptance by its members. The upshot is a strong emphasis on maintaining stable relationships with others and conforming to role expectations (Pan, 2000; Schnurr and Chan, 2011; Selmer and DeLeon, 2003). This may manifest in the tendency to denigrate oneself so as to display respect for and deference toward others, a phenomenon we explore in this paper. We employ a face-based framework for relational analysis: Spencer-Oatey's (2008) theorisation of interactional rapport management, which Schnurr and Chan (2011) use to explore teasing and self-denigrating humour in the workplace. The interactional rapport management framework focuses on language as management of social relations. It draws on politeness theory, particularly the notion of face, but expands it into the more nuanced concept of rapport management. Rapport management relates to the role of language in constructing, maintaining, enhancing, or damaging social relationships, but it also encompasses sociality rights and obligations and interactional goals. It also places greater emphasis on the balance between self and interlocutor than early self-focused conceptualisations of face (e.g. Brown and Levinson, 1987). The framework stresses three bases of rapport. The first is orientation to interlocutors' face sensitivities, i.e. their desire to be treated by others with esteem appropriate to their relationship. The second is sociality rights and obligations, i.e. interactants' -vis contractual or legal agreements and requirements; roles and social positions; and behavioural expectations vis-a behavioural styles and protocols. The third is interactional goals, i.e. goals (relational or transactional) which interactants may desire to achieve in and through discourse. Although application of Spencer-Oatey's (2008) framework to self-denigration or lingua franca pragmatics studies is limited, its multiplex focus on face needs, sociality rights, and interactional goals make it a useful instrument for analysing the relational functions of self-denigration. 2.3. Self-denigration for shared amusement Another function of self-denigration which has been noted in the literature (Yu, 2013) is for generating shared amusement. Interactants may temporarily reframe their character, their habits, or their past or present actions in a self-deprecatory light for humour value among co-participants. This reframing may project that they have a sense of humour about themselves; they may also generate laughter and possibly jocular responses from other interlocutors (Yu, 2013). A humorous selfdenigration is signalled through off-record markers of non-seriousness such as playful tones of voice, amusing facial expressions, or exaggerated non-verbal gestures (Yu, 2013). Broadly speaking, the more such markers accompany selfdenigration, the more explicitly humour is being projected. In relational terms, humour that denigrates the self is relatively ‘safe’ because it targets the producer's own face rather than that of another interlocutor (Schnurr and Chan, 2011). We shall examine how this function is carried out in the ACE dataset. 3. Methodology 3.1. Brief outline of corpus The site for data collection is the Asian Corpus of English (ACE), a million-word online repository comprising naturallyoccurring spoken interactions among Asian participants through the medium of English as a lingua franca. English-

I. Walkinshaw et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 139 (2019) 40e51

43

speakers from Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam are represented in a range of domains: Education, Leisure, and Professional (divided into Professional Organisational, Professional Business, and Professional Research and Science). ACE was compiled to explore the lexical, grammatical, phonological, pragmatic, and/or sociolinguistic components of ELF as it occurs in Asian contexts (Kirkpatrick, 2010). To address ethical issues relating to privacy in a spoken corpus, teams involved in compiling and transcribing the data have obtained relevant written consent, and consistently assured anonymity of speaker attribution and/or identifiable place names. The dataset compiled for this analysis is part of a broader investigation of humour in face-to-face interactions across ACE. Initially, instances of self-denigrating humour were sourced from across the entire ACE corpus. These were then manually annotated and cross-checked by two raters. The requirement for humour was then removed since humour is not an essential component of self-denigration, and self-denigration itself became the sole focus. To more explicitly locate each self-denigration token within the context of the talk surrounding it, turns antecedent and subsequent to each token were analysed, as well as the tokens themselves. Because this study explores self-denigration as a relational strategy, joint annotation focused on establishing agreement about the prosodic and paralinguistic components of selfdenigration sequences and the relational functions they served, rather than addressing formal linguistic qualities such as syntax. Agreement was achieved by having the three authors separately re-transcribe the sound files containing selfdenigration tokens using a nuanced, prosody-focused conversation analytic convention (Jefferson, 2004) and then cross-checking them. Self-denigration instances occurred in several interactional settings, but every instance presented a specific combination of communicative variables: Informal, non-task-oriented conversations without assigned interactional roles. Eggins and Slade (2005) label such talk ‘casual conversation’, that is, ‘talking in a relaxed, spontaneous and unselfconscious way’ (p.17) which is unguided other than for jointly constructing social relations. Twenty sequences containing 49 discrete self-denigrating utterances were identified in the corpus. The collection was then categorised using a simplified two-turn adjacency pair sequence distinction (Schegloff, 2007), categorising the selfdenigration language as either first-turn or second-turn. This binary categorisation forms the foundation of the current analysis: First-turn self-denigration (stand-alone), first-turn self-denigration preceding self-praise, second-turn selfdenigration in response to praise, second-turn self-denigration in response to criticism, and second-turn self-denigration in response to a neutral question or statement. 3.2. Conversation analysis We apply an approach informed by conversation analysis to explore how participant stance, dis/affiliation and dis/ alignment (Steensig and Drew, 2008; Stivers, 2008) are situated and re-situated in realisations of self-denigration in the ACE dataset. Stance refers to an interactant's position relative to a particular verbalised social action. Interactants may be the producer of an utterance, the intended target, a ratified participant with rights to actively engage in the interaction, or a non-ratified bystander, overhearer, or eavesdropper without such rights but still able to listen (Goffman, 1967; Haugh, 2015). -vis Stances may be affiliative or disaffiliative. The former refers to actions which support or reinforce another's stance vis-a a particular topic, such as displaying empathy, voicing agreement, or cooperating with an action preference (Steensig, 2013; Stivers, 2008). Conversely, disaffiliation connotes divergence, non-sharedness or opposition to another's stance. Interactionally speaking, participants may also align with or disalign from a projected action trajectory (Stivers, 2008). Alignment occurs at a structural level and may be displayed by voicing support for a given interactional activity or sequence, accepting the presuppositions and terms of that activity/sequence, and/or by accepting and performing proposed interactional roles (Steensig, 2013; Stivers et al., 2011). Disaligned actions are those that undermine these structural aspects of the activity/ sequence, perhaps offering alternative activity trajectories to those projected, or treating an ongoing sequence as problematic and adjusting the sequence. 4. Data analysis 4.1. First-turn self-denigration (stand-alone) Self-denigration may occur as a first-turn, stand-alone utterance, unprompted by any preceding utterance by the producer or by any other interlocutor. Example 1 below is a representative instance. The sequence occurs as part of an informal workplace conversation between a Vietnamese female (VnF) and an Indonesian male (InM); as with other exchanges emerging from the present study, the context is non-task-oriented and no institutionalised interactional roles are activated. The two participants have established a friendly, collegial relationship. In the preceding turns, they have been discussing how they get home from work on rainy days. VnF advocates taking the subway (IRT), while InM mentions a preference for taxis, which are more expensive but quicker:

44

[1] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [ACE,

I. Walkinshaw et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 139 (2019) 40e51

InM ¼hahe yeah nah [hh sometimes yeah I take l R T but VnF [sometime (xx) InM (1.6) er:: (1.2) i'm kinda a lazy person you know¼ VnF ¼oh you are I think hhh.hhh InM [okay thank you] .hhh [no VnF [hahaha ] [haha. InM if possible I want to reach the home early:¼ VnF ¼[mhm? InM ¼[so I can do:: (1) more stuff VnF okay. MS_LE_con_10]

The self-denigration sequence begins with InM outlining his preference for taxis over the IRT. The utterance-final ‘but’ notwithstanding, InM appears to relinquish the floor at this point. However there is no uptake from VnF so InM reclaims the floor and extends his turn with an unprompted stand-alone self-denigration in line 3: “I'm kinda a lazy person you know”. His utterance here operates as a reason for not taking the subway, an upshot from his abandoned utterance in line 1. He appears to be initiating a humorous self-teasing sequence with the expectation e signalled with the cajoler ‘you know’ e that they will jointly co-construct the jocular tease, affirming their relationship. VnF humorously ratifies InM's self-denigrating selfassessment (‘oh you are I think hhh.hhh’) in line 4, prefacing her utterance with the emphasis marker ‘oh’ and displaying her humorous intention with utterance-final laughter. The sequence constitutes an instance of ‘goading’, i.e. “the casting of humorous jibes at a ratified recipient of the interaction for the enjoyment of the interactants and where the casting also selects the target to respond in some way” (Mitchell, 2015: 121e122). Such goading indexes latent shared knowledge (in this case that InM can be humorously characterised as ‘lazy’) and performs affiliative solidarity work between the participants. The goading sequence is closed with InM's humorous acceptance of VnF's jibe in line 5, “okay thank you”. VnF's overlapping laughter (line 6) reinforces her non-serious frame, defusing the potential face damage to InM. In line 7 InM re-initiates the prior topic of talk (getting home from work). His utterance (‘if possible I want to get home early […] so I can do:: (1) more stuff’) offers a post hoc grounding for his use of taxis, and also projects a serious motivation, in contrast to his earlier nonserious claim of being motivated by laziness. VnF endorses InM's shift back to the prior topic with supportive backchannels in lines 8 (‘mhm?’) and 10 (‘okay.’). In Example 1, a moment of jocular work is sequentially positioned as an insert sequence within a longer storytelling episode. The self-denigration is treated as non-problematic as it is clearly marked as jocular by both participants and does not impede the development of the exchange. Rather it functions as a humorous interlude which affirms the relationship between the interlocutors. 4.2. First-turn self-denigration (preceding self-praise) Self-denigration may also occur as a preface to (and modifier of) a producer's positive self-evaluation. Example 2 illustrates how this occurs in a discussion of personal characteristics. The participants are four educational researchers who are resident in Singapore: Two males from China (ChM1 and ChM2) and two females from Singapore and India (SiF and InF). The setting is an informal ‘getting-acquainted’ exchange (Svennevig, 1999). One participant (who is present but does not speak during Example 2) has previously initiated the sequence by asking the others to describe their personal character. Her utterance, possibly an orientation to the recording, is arguably non-natural in topic design. But the example is naturally-occurring, shows turn-taking and shared humour, and presents a clear sample of self-denigrating talk:

[2] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

InF ChM2 ChM1 SiF InF InF ChM1 SiF ChM2 InF

I'm not a:: (0.7) very active person but. (0.3) when it comes to work my brain works faste::r (0.5) than my body? hhh ha [ha ha [ha ha ha [ha ha ha .hhh ha ha ha. .hhh¼ ¼ah >but actually< I'm a:: very la:zy person who ha:tes getting up early in the morning¼ ha ha [ha [err::: [er a ha [ eh ha ha ha and er* um (0.3) >basically I'm.< not very active person: to do some er-to

I. Walkinshaw et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 139 (2019) 40e51

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [ACE,

45

involve in some physical activities? hm.¼ but mental? activities O K: I can en-engage myself? (0.6) hm:: er. ah. (1.6) yes but. ah hhh (1.9)  hm ChM2 InF (2.0) how to say.¼I am a im positive person? (0.5) [who a:::h (0.3) and i like to learn through.out my life SG_ED_con_1] ChM2 InF

InF begins the exchange in line 1 with a negative self-evaluation, ‘I'm not a:: (0.7) very active person’, but follows it with self-praise: ‘when it comes to work my brain works faste::r (0.5) than my body? hhh’. The shared laughter which results indicates levity among the participants, demonstrating that the initial self-denigration is well placed as a counterpoint to the ensuing self-praise. In lines 12e13, InF recycles the same strategy, denigrating herself as ‘not very active person: to do some er-to involve in some physical activities’ before self-praising: ‘but mental? activities O K:¼I can en-engage myself? (line 15); ‘I am a im positive person’ (line 18). The interactants in Example 2 appear to share an unspoken consensus that a self-praising self-disclosure is acceptable in this particular sequence (with its incongruous sequence-launching utterance which solicits self-evaluative statements), provided it is preceded by a negative self-assessment to temper the subsequent self-praise. The self-denigration in this excerpt serves two parallel functions which ameliorate any awkwardness and propel the interaction: Shared humour, reducing social distance, and promoting solidarity among participants; and positioning the producer of a self-praising utterance as compliant with a self-denigration maxim (Gu, 1990), i.e. appropriately modest rather than vain or unacceptably self-aggrandising. 4.3. Second-turn self-denigration in response to praise Concording with Pomerantz's (1978) finding that compliments are often deflected or rejected by their recipients, we find that in the ACE dataset self-denigration is a common response to an utterance from an interlocutor which praises some aspect of the addressee's character. Such rejections of praise from others constitutes adherence to Leech's (1983) modesty maxim. As mentioned above, compliment rejection also conforms to Gu's (1990) associated self-denigration maxim with its injunction that compliment recipients should ‘denigrate the self’ in their response in order to display modesty. The sequence in Example 3 comprises two males, one Chinese (ChM) and the other Iranian (IrM), and one Chinese female, ChF. All tertiary students, they are having an informal conversation on a campus in Singapore:

[3] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 [ACE,

ChM IrM ChM

you know? b-before i came here i. didn't kno:w there's o:ne N I E here (0.6) ohY¼ ¼just just in er two: thousand seve:n a:: chinese annually jus- send some (0.4) a batch of P G DELT scholars you know (0.6) ChF you [are one of them? ChM [ah [yeah. IeI I used? to be a P G DELT student.¼ IrM ¼bright student.¼ ChF ¼yeah ChM ¼no:: not not so bright ha .hhh i'm jus- bit[ lucky: ha[haha .hhh¼ ChF [hehehe IrM ¼no:. well. [you're just being hum]ble:. you know.¼ ChM [no nice (there) ] ChF ¼yeah¼ ChM ¼ha aha .hhh am [I humble? a::h¼ ChF [( xxx ) ChM ¼i think you are very humble ha  ha[ha ChF [ehhehe IrM [thank you. I am. ChM [hahaha IrM [hahaha ChF [ hehe .hhh ChM yeah. SG_ED_con_2]

46

I. Walkinshaw et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 139 (2019) 40e51

The conversation begins with a self-identification sequence where participants introduce themselves as language students. ChM self-identifies as a PGDELT (Post Graduate Diploma of English Language Teaching) student sent by the Chinese Government to study abroad. The PGDELT student cohort is evidently held in some esteem by others, indicated by the positive category predicate offered in line 7, ‘bright student’. The predicate ‘bright’ is acknowledged and affiliated with quickly by ChF in line 8, creating a shared stance wherein ChF and IrM are positioning ChM as bright. But in line 9 ChM, the predicate target, moves to disaffiliate and take an opposing, self-denigrating stance: ‘no:: not not so bright ha .hhh i'm jus- bit[ lucky: hahaha .hhh’. The initial part of ChM's turn (‘no::’) is a bald on-record rejection of IrM's assessment of him as ‘bright’. The elongation is heard as adding emphasis. ChM then shifts his stance from rejection of IrM's claim to mitigation, the mitigating adverb phrase ‘not so bright’ partially affiliating with the claim while mitigating its strength. ChM then offers a self-denigrating counter-selfcharacterisation as ‘lucky’ (line 9), crediting an external factor beyond ChM's control rather than an innate quality as IrM claims. Further to this, ‘lucky’ is qualified with the adverb phrase ‘jus- bit’, downplaying the amount of luck afforded to him. ChM's laughter particles (lines 9, 14, and 16) seem to be displaying discomfiture at IrM's complimentary evaluation of him rather than projecting humorous intent. So the utterance ‘no:: not not so bright ha .hhh i'm jus- bit[ lucky: hahaha .hhh’ exemplifies a systematic, preferred response to praising: that of praise denial, reflecting a social norm of rejection or mitigation of praise, rather than acceptance. In line 11 IrM responds to ChM with ‘no:. well. you're just being humble:. you know’, triggering a new complimentdeflection sequence by ChM. IrM's praising turn reinforces his prior ‘bright student’ (line 7) assessment by implying that ChM's negative self-assessment in line 9 (‘not so bright’) is a conscious display of modesty and does not reflect his actual selfimage. The cajoler ‘you know’ recruits acknowledgement from ChM. ChF again affiliates to IrM's ‘you're just being humble’ stance with ‘yeah’ in line 13. ChM's response in line 14 begins with initial laughter particles to connote jocularity, then queries IrM's praising assessment of him as humble: ‘ha aha .hhh am I humble? a::h’. Note that the compliment is simply recast as an interrogative, thereby implying non-acceptance (though not outright rejection) of IrM's assessment. ChM then instantly returns the compliment back to the complimenter (‘i think you are very humble ha  haha ') (Pomerantz, 1978), taking the opportunity to elevate the other in line with Gu's (1990) self-denigration maxim. ChM indicates jocularity through utterancefinal laughter particles, which are also taken up briefly by ratified participant ChF in line 17, indicating a shared stance of the response as humorous. Not missing a beat, IrM humorously accepts the compliment (‘thank you I am’), neatly turning the participants' shared expectation of self-denigration and modesty on its head. If the praise recipient was observing a selfdenigration maxim, then we should expect a self-denigrating rejection of the praise such as ‘no I'm not’. IrM's immediate acceptance (in line 18) of ChM's ‘you are very humble’ compliment therefore: 1) flouts any such self-denigration maxim; and 2) renders redundant the assessment which he has just accepted, since by accepting it he is not being humble. The salient flout generates shared laughter among the interactants, which was most likely IrM's intention in uttering it. Example 3 (above) instantiates several possible reasons for employing self-denigration as set out in the literature: It provides an example of adherence to prevailing social norms of modesty and self-denigration, and it demonstrates flouting these norms for humorous effect, thereby reinforcing group solidarity. It also displays how relational rapport may be attended to through self-denigration. The praise recipient, ChM is non-accepting of the praise directed at him and instead directs it back at the praise's producer. ChM is performing face-work in doing so e lowering his own face by not accepting the praise and thereby enhancing his self-image as an appropriately modest person e and also by returning the praise to his interlocutor, thereby enhancing their face as well. 4.4. Second-turn self-denigration in response to criticism The ACE dataset contains a few instances of self-denigrating responses to criticism by other participants. These instances of criticism are (as far as can be ascertained from the available data) jocular in nature, rather than serious or malicious attempts to criticise an aspect of a target's character (Haugh and Bousfield, 2012). In this regard they constitute jocular teasing, or what Goddard (2006) terms ‘taking the piss/mickey’: An expectation exists that the criticism will be received as jocular and will generate shared humour, thereby affirming the friendly nature of the participants' relationship. The phenomenon is exemplified in Example 4. Four female postgraduate students are having an informal conversation in a shared dormitory on a campus in Singapore. Three are Malaysian (MaF1, MaF2, and MaF3) and the fourth is Chinese (ChF):

[4] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

MaF1 MaF2 MaF3 MaF2 MaF1 MaF2 MaF1 MaF3 MaF2

I want to buy a pla:nt.¼but I thought I was going to.- I was going to go off that and I thought she'll kill it .hhh¼ ¼I will [kill it¼ah [ [kill it. ¼ah. .hhh [I thought I thought ye would.¼ [I [got (even it) ¼[you SEE::?¼ ye[ah¼ [so: i take care of a cac tus also [cos I'll. kill- IeI'll keep

I. Walkinshaw et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 139 (2019) 40e51

11 12 13 14 15 16 [ACE,

47

MaM1 (ben.) (0.4) MaF1 [[what do.  you mean ¼ MaF2 [.hhh MaF2 ¼yeah I¼ MaF1 ¼[because you can[not? wa?ter::. MaF3 [.hhh  ha ha .hhh MS_ED_con_6]

The action sequence begins with an intention disclosure from MaF1 saying that she had considered purchasing a plant (line 1). MaF1 verbalises her cognitive process in not doing so, i.e. that if she was absent and left it with MaF2 the latter would neglect it until it died: ‘I was going to go off that and I thought she'll kill it. hhh’. This apparently jocular jibe constitutes a teasing characterisation of MaF2 as the kind of person who would inadvertently let a plant die. Because teasing is inherently
s-Conde, 1997), we cannot be completely certain whether MaF1's tease is intended to perform an ambiguous (Boxer and Corte affirmative relational function or whether some malice is intended, or indeed whether both functions are co-present (Boxer
s-Conde, 1997). However, we speculate the former, given that teasing in Asian ELF settings (Walkinshaw, 2016) and and Corte in other lingua franca contexts (House, 2013) has been shown to be largely jocular and relational in nature, at least in informal, non-task-focused exchanges. MaF2 immediately responds to the tease with self-denigrating agreement (‘I will kill it ah’) (line 3). Her affiliative participation in the tease signals her acceptance of it as non-serious and supports the relational affirmation which MaF1 seems to intend. Upon receipt of MaF2's acceptance, MaF1 extends the (now jointly marked as jocular) teasing sequence with a rejoinder that humorously references and affiliates to MaF2's self-denigrating agreement: ‘I thought I thought ye would’. MaF1 then shifts from the hitherto dyadic frame to solicit acknowledgement and affiliation from MaF3 (‘[you SEE::?’), an inactive side participant. MaF3 responds instantly with ‘yeah’ (line 9), displaying affiliation with MaF1's stance. Tease recipient MaF2 then initiates a (non-completed) recycling of her self-denigrating utterance in line 10: ‘so: i take care of a cac tus also [cos I'll. kill- IeI'll keep-’. MaF2 is displaying her affiliation with the consensus stance that exists between MaF1 (the stance initiator) and MaF3 (the stance affiliate). MaF2 performs a socially delicate move to cast the consensus stance as jocular and preferred, and to deflect the appearance of being offended. This is what allows the talk to continue. MaF2's self-denigrating response to the teasing sequence has two consequences for the arc of the interaction. Her acceptance of the tease within a jocular frame, thereby constructing consensus, generates shared humour among the participants and affirms the friendly nature of their relationship (cf. Yu, 2013). MaF2 is also able to maintain her own face (potentially damaged by a tease due to the inherent ambiguity of its intent) by turning the criticism directed at her into a shared joke, demonstrating how ‘willingness to go along with or even initiate laughter at oneself provides potential payoffs in realigning towards affiliation’ (Glenn, 2003: 119; cf. Norrick, 1993). The interaction continues along its trajectory with no outward sign of disruption or upset by any member. 4.5. Second-turn self-denigration in response to neutral question/statement Lastly, self-denigration may occur as a response to a neutral question or statement, that is, where there is no identifiable factor in the prior turns at talk that might be expected to trigger a self-denigrating response, but the addressee's response is nonetheless hearable as self-denigrating. Example 5 below represents this kind of sequence. The exchange takes place in Brunei between a female Bruneian researcher (BrF) and a Laotian male (LaM) who is studying in Brunei. The relevant sequence is prefaced by a discussion about the daily number of meals in their respective cultures. In Example 5 BrF has shifted the topic to LaM's eating habits:

[5] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

LaM BrF LaM BrF LaM BrF LaM

BrF LaM BrF

e:::r usually (.) er for me i don't have breakfast oh you skip breakfast ye:s okay i- what is it because you don't have [time? [because i'm lazy hahahaha [hh [hhh no no tch er:m (.) usually:: before i: was young (0.5.) er:m when i study: (.) yes? i have the breakfast (.) every (.) morning (0.6) but after i finish the high school start ah::: university (.) my parent don't have time to take care me right? (.) i should do everything by my own (0.4) yet (0.6) 10 this time (0.6) i become the lazy o(h)ne hh he not even: (.) you know make a cup of coffee for yourse:lf? no (.) [no no no [no hhh

48

15 16 17 18 19 20 [ACE,

I. Walkinshaw et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 139 (2019) 40e51

er::: (0.8) it's er lazy to wake up early (1.2) tch (1) [until erm (0.6) [until now (coughs) until now (.) s- still no oh: okay so you just (.) when you wake up and then you just get out of bed and (.) maybe shower and [that's- and just go. LaM [mm (0.8) yes (.) go. BN_ED_int_laotian_bruneian_comparing_experiences] LaM BrF LaM BrF

LaM's declaration in line 1 that he doesn't usually eat breakfast initiates the sequence which leads to self-denigration. BrF replies with a partial reformulation of LaM's utterance in line 2 to express her surprise. Then in line 4 she suggests a possible reason for LaM missing breakfast, i.e. that he lacks time to prepare and eat it. LaM pre-empts her upshot, overlapping her turn with his self-denigrating response ‘because I'm lazy hahahaha hh’. LaM's self-characterisation as ‘lazy’ strikes a tangential, disaffiliative stance to that of BrF, whose turn in line 4 has cast him as being merely short of time rather than lazy. LaM's utterance-final laughter tokens in line 5 suggest that he intends his negative self-characterisation as non-serious. BrF affiliates to LaM's stance by participating in the laughter (line 6). In lines 7e11, LaM provides context and a supporting rationale for his negative self-characterisation. Note that in line 11 he repeats his prior self-characterisation as ‘lazy’ and again interpolates laughter particles, marking the utterance as humorous. BrF's next turn at talk is in line 12: ‘not even you know make a cup of coffee for yourself?’ In contrast with her neutrally-phrased question in line 4 the syntactic arrangement of this utterance implies mild criticism: ‘not even…make a cup of coffee’ frames coffee-making as a simple task and implies a modicum of incredulity that LaM cannot manage it. Her utterance-embedded cajoler ‘you know’ adds to the effect, prompting into consciousness LaM's epistemic awareness of coffee-making as an uncomplicated breakfast-time activity. LaM's response in line 13 employs repetition to emphasise his stance: ‘no (.) no no no’. He then reiterates his reason for not eating breakfast (line 14): ‘er::: (0.8) it's er lazy to wake up early (1.2) tch (1) [until erm (0.6) [until now’. He recycles his self-characterisation as ‘lazy’ for a third time, and adds that his condition (‘laziness’) persists ‘until now’, using a marked rising intonation shift for emphasis. There is no utterance-final laughter after ‘lazy’ this time e although this may not be significant since he is ascribing the word to an action (i.e. not waking up early) rather than using it to characterise himself. And given his status as a speaker of English as an additional language (EAL), he may be using the word inconsistently as a substitute for another word he is temporarily unable to activate. In sum, the tenor of LaM's self-denigrating self-characterisation as ‘lazy’ is most likely humorous. He frames the talk as non-serious, possibly to reduce the social distance between himself and his interlocutor. He seems unconcerned about his own face-needs, blithely painting himself in a (humorously) negative light. He does not seem to be acting in accordance with any particular social norm of self-denigration, perhaps because there is no prompting item (e.g. praise from other) which might trigger a disaffiliative, self-lowering response. 5. Discussion and conclusion Two questions guided this research: (1) How do ELF interactants in the ACE dataset perform self-denigration (a) as a first turn; and (b) as a response to a prior turn; and (2) what relational functions are performed in such interactions. We here summarise our findings in regard to these questions, outline the limitations of the research, and suggest future directions. 5.1. How self-denigration is performed In the ACE dataset, sequentially speaking, self-denigration appears both in first and second turn positions. It may occur as a stand-alone turn at talk, unprompted by any prior utterance or activity (although we acknowledge that such acts may be triggered by events prior to the conversation, or by non-verbal cues such as facial expressions which are not accessible to the researcher) and not preceding any further utterance or other action. First-turn self-denigration may also be positioned directly prior to a producer's positive self-evaluation, tempering its apparent immodesty. Self-denigration has also been observed as a response to an interlocutor's positive evaluation, criticism, or neutral statement. 5.2. Relational functions All instances of self-denigration examined in this paper perform particular relational functions which support or enhance the interpersonal relationship between the participants. We here map our findings against the three strands of SpencerOatey's (2008) interactional rapport management framework (outlined in Section 2.2): Face sensitivities, orientation to sociality rights and obligations, and advancing relational objectives. We note first of all that self-denigration may encompass several functions simultaneously.

I. Walkinshaw et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 139 (2019) 40e51

49

5.2.1. Face sensitivities The current analysis identifies self-denigration as a common strategy for carrying out face-work. A prime exemplar is Example 4, where a participant responds to a critical assessment from a co-participant that she will kill a cactus if it is left with her by instantly agreeing that she will indeed kill the plant. Her self-denigrating second turn to the potentially face-damaging utterance facilitates what we might term face equanimity e that is, ostensible non-offence at a tease or related activity such as jocular mockery (Haugh, 2010), goading (Mitchell, 2015), banter (Dynel, 2008), or jocular abuse (Haugh and Bousfield, 2012) e thereby normalising the rapport among the interactants and allowing the interaction to carry on. We say ‘ostensible’ because the inherently ambiguous nature of teasing and related actions precludes any definitive assessment of whether facedamage has occurred (Eisenberg, 1986; Miller, 1986). Addressees may be “wounded by an accurate dart” (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 229) but displaying face equanimity to avoid prejudicing the interactional trajectory or their relational status with their co-participants. In either case though, the appearance of equanimity may be sufficient for the interactional exchange to recommence along its prior course. 5.2.2. Sociality rights and obligations In the ACE dataset, self-denigration may also occur in line with a self-denigration maxim (Gu, 1990), i.e. a normative social obligation constraining speech behaviour. It is most commonly positioned prior to self-praise or in response to a positive evaluation by others, to avoid displaying (or at least to mitigate) an immodest self-characterisation. Gu's conceptualisation incorporates two sub-maxims: Denigrate the self; and elevate the other. A textbook case is Example 3, where a participant responds to an interlocutor's assessment of him as a ‘bright student’ by initially rejecting and then downgrading the compliment (‘no:: not not so bright ha .hhh i'm jus- bit[ lucky: hahaha .hhh’). Then, having been characterised by the same interlocutor as ‘humble’, the participant seizes the chance to elevate the other: ‘am I humble? a::h i think you are very humble’. Note that it is not essential for both sub-maxims to be observed: Any instance where self-denigration is occasioned to defray a self-characterisation or other-assessment as immodest constitutes observance of a self-denigration maxim. 5.2.3. Relational goals Jocular self-denigration (re-)affirms relational solidarity through the shared humour generated. It promotes a speaker's positive self-image as easy-going and able to handle chaffing and joshing (Norrick, 1993). While a detailed treatment of relational humour in the ACE dataset is beyond our scope, a limited discussion of salient examples may be informative. A number of self-denigration sequences in ACE appear to orient (either in isolation or jointly with other relational functions) to shared humour and its associated relational outcomes. They are also receipted by addressees as humorous, sometimes signalled through jocular agreement with the utterance's self-denigrating content, as in Example 1:

InM: (1.6) er:: (1.2) I'm kinda a lazy person you know¼ VnF: ¼oh you are I think hhh.hhh

In Example 1, VnF's second-turn jocular agreement and the sentence-final laughter particles signal her receipt of InM's self-denigrating self-assessment as humorous and geared toward relational solidarity. Another type of humour employed is joking (Norrick, 2003), which does not target an interlocutor's perceived deficiencies
s-Conde, 1997). In ACE self-denigration as teasing does and is therefore more clearly solidarity-oriented (Boxer and Corte sequences it occurs in the head act, responding turn, and/or in subsequent turns. This segment from Example 3 is one such instance. The joking insert sequence takes place shortly after ChM's self-denigrating utterance (‘not not so bright ha .hhh i'm jus- bit[ lucky:’):

ChM: ChF: IrM: ChM: IrM: ChF:

¼i think you are very humble ha  ha[ha [ehhehe thank you. I am. [hahaha [hahaha [ hehe .hhh

The joke constitutes jocular irony (Goddard, 2006): IrM responds to ChM's compliment that ‘I think you are very humble’ by humorously agreeing with the other's assessment (‘thank you. I am’), thereby humorously displaying an ironically nonhumble stance. The over-the-top nature of the initial gratitude marker ‘thank you’ further marks IrM's utterance as humorous. Shared laughter and in-group bonding ensue. As laughter is a common indicator of humour projected, received, and engaged with in talk-in-interaction, it is worth touching on how laughter presents in ACE self-denigration sequences. Laughter may be a feature of the head act or turns preceding or following it and can be expressed by any ratified participants. Apart from conveying amusement, it appears to function primarily as a framing marker (Glenn, 2003; Glenn and Knapp, 1987), displaying non-serious intent (by a producer)

50

I. Walkinshaw et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 139 (2019) 40e51

and acknowledging non-serious receipt (by an addressee or other interlocutor), although not necessarily expressing agreement with the producer's self-denigrating utterance (cf. Schnurr and Chan, 2011). Our position that self-denigration in the ACE dataset is primarily oriented to relational rapport is endorsed by existing research into ELF interactional norms which points to rapport management as a key driver of ELF speech behaviour. Walkinshaw and Kirkpatrick's (2014) investigation of Asian ELF speakers noted a preference for relational contiguity, likely born of their need to communicate effectively despite the linguistic and cultural dissimilarities (Seidlhofer, 2004) outlined in the first part of this paper. House (2013) points to a similar pattern among ELF users in Europe. Note though that our findings are premised upon informal, non-hierarchical, non-task-oriented interactions. In more formal (particularly business) contexts where contextual variables such as hierarchy or task-orientation are in play interactional comity is not necessarily prioritised (Bjørge, 2012; Jenks, 2012; Pullin Stark, 2009). 5.3. Limitations and future research Because our dataset is limited in size and drawn from a single corpus situated within a particular geographical area, we do not extrapolate beyond the current findings. Clearly though, given the relatively small number of ELF pragmatics studies at present, there is considerable scope for future exploration of self-denigration and associated relational strategies. In particular, a comparison of ELF data against L1 data might shed light on whether/to what extent any L1 or first culture social norms of interaction manifest in ELF self-denigration. One might also explore how ELF users' pragmatic fluency (House, 1996) becomes relevant in performing or responding to self-denigration. In closing, we refrain from suggesting that the relational strategies attributed to self-denigration in the current study are in any way sui generis to Asian ELF speakers. Existing ELF studies across a range of situational and geographical contexts reveal €rkman, considerable overlap in pragmatic strategies employed by ELF speakers for interactional or relational purposes (see Bjo 2011 for an overview). Studies of Asian ELF speakers (e.g. Walkinshaw and Kirkpatrick, 2014) tend to support these findings. Self-denigration might therefore be expected to serve similar relational functions in other ELF contexts as well. A comparison of ACE with other equivalent corpora (e.g. the Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English, a Europe-focused counterpart to ACE) might provide a firmer basis for extrapolation. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. References Bjørge, Anne Kari, 2012. Expressing disagreement in ELF business negotiations: theory and practice. Appl. Linguist. 33 (4), 406e427. €rkman, Beyza, 2011. Pragmatic strategies in English as an academic lingua franca: ways of achieving communicative effectiveness? J. Pragmat. 43 (4), Bjo 950e964.
s-Conde, Florencia, 1997. From bonding to biting: conversational joking and identity display. J. Pragmat. 27 (3), 275e294. Boxer, Diana, Corte Brown, Penelope, Levinson, Stephen, 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Chen, Rong, 1993. Responding to compliments: a contrastive study of politeness strategies between American English and Chinese speakers. J. Pragmat. 20 (1), 49e75. Chen, Rong, Yang, Dafu, 2010. Responding to compliments in Chinese: has it changed? J. Pragmat. 42 (7), 1951e1963. Cogo, Alessia, 2009. Accommodating difference in ELF conversations: a study of pragmatic strategies. In: Mauranen, A., Ranta, E. (Eds.), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle, pp. 254e273. Dynel, Marta, 2008. No aggression, only teasing: the pragmatics of teasing and banter. Lodz Pap. Pragmat. 4 (2), 241e261. Eggins, Suzanne, Slade, Diana, 2005. Analysing Casual Conversation. Equinox, London. Eisenberg, Ann, 1986. Teasing: verbal play in two Mexicano homes. In: Schieffelin, B., Ochs, E. (Eds.), Language Socialization across Cultures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 183e198. Firth, Alan, 1996. The discursive accomplishment of normality: on ‘lingua franca’ English and conversation analysis. J. Pragmat. 26 (2), 237e259. Garfinkel, Harold, 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Glenn, Phillip, 2003. Laughter in Interaction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Glenn, Phillip, Knapp, Mark, 1987. The interactive framing of play in adult conversations. Commun. Q. 35 (1), 48e66. Goddard, Cliff, 2006. ‘Lift your game Martina!’: Deadpan jocular irony and the ethnopragmatics of Australian English. In: Goddard, C. (Ed.), Ethnopragmatics: Understanding Discourse in Cultural Context. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 65e97. Goffman, Erving, 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-face Behaviour. Garden City, New York. Gu, Yueguo, 1990. Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. J. Pragmat. 14 (2), 237e257. Habib, Rania, 2008. Humor and disagreement: identity construction and cross-cultural enrichment. J. Pragmat. 40 (6), 1117e1145. Haugh, Michael, 2015. Im/politeness Implicatures. De Gruyter, Berlin. Haugh, Michael, 2010. Jocular mockery, (dis)affiliation, and face. J. Pragmat. 42, 2106e2119. Haugh, Michael, Bousfield, Derek, 2012. Mock impoliteness, jocular mockery and jocular abuse in Australian and British English. J. Pragmat. 44, 1099e1114. House, Juliane, 2013. Pragmatics of lingua franca interaction. In: Chapelle, C. (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Blackwell, Chichester, pp. 1e7. House, Juliane, 1996. Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: routines and metapragmatic awareness. Stud. Sec. Lang. Acquis. 18 (2), 225e252. Hynninen, Niina, 2011. The practice of ‘mediation’ in English as a lingua franca interaction. J. Pragmat. 43 (4), 965e977. Ide, Sachiko, 2005. How and why honorifics can signify dignity and elegance. In: Lakoff, R., Ide, S. (Eds.), Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 45e64. Itakura, Hiroko, Tsui, Amy, 2011. Evaluation in academic discourse: managing criticism in Japanese and English book reviews. J. Pragmat. 43 (5), 1366e1379. Jefferson, Gail, 2004. Glossary of transcript signals with an introduction. In: Lerner, G. (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 13e23. Jenks, Christopher, 2012. Doing being reprehensive: some interactional features of English as a lingua franca in a chat room. Applied Linguistics 33 (4), 386e405. Kaur, Jagdish, 2009. Pre-empting problems of understanding in English as a lingua franca. In: Mauranen, A., Ranta, E. (Eds.), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle, pp. 107e123.

I. Walkinshaw et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 139 (2019) 40e51

51

Kim, Myung-Hee, 2014. Why self-deprecating? Achieving ‘oneness’ in conversation. J. Pragmat. 69, 82e98. Kirkpatrick, Andy, 2010. Researching English as a lingua franca in Asia: the Asian corpus of English (ACE) project. Asian Englishes 13 (1), 4e18. Knapp, Annelie, 2011. Using English as a lingua franca for (mis-)managing conflict in an international university context: an example from a course in engineering. J. Pragmat. 43 (4), 978e990. Leech, Geoffrey, 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. Longman, London.
Leszny
ak, Agnes, 2002. From chaos to the smallest common denominator: topic management in English lingua franca communication. In: Knapp, K., Meierkord, C. (Eds.), Lingua Franca Communication. Peter Lang, Frankfurt, pp. 163e193. Lichtkoppler, Julia, 2007. ‘Male. Male.’ e ‘Male?’ e ‘The sex is male.’ e the role of repetition in English as a lingua franca conversations. Vienna Engl. Work. Pap. 16 (1), 39e65. Mao, Lu-Ming, 1994. Beyond politeness theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed. J. Pragmat. 21 (5), 451e486. Mauranen, Anna, 2007. Hybrid voices: English as the lingua franca of academics. In: Flottum, K., Dahl, T., Kinn, T. (Eds.), Language and Discipline Perspectives on Academic Discourse. Cambridge Scholars Press, Cambridge, pp. 244e259. Mauranen, Anna, 2006. Signaling and preventing misunderstanding in English as lingua franca communication. Int. J. Sociol. Lang. 177, 123e150. Matsumoto, Yoshiko, 1988. Re-examination of the universality of face: politeness phenomena in Japanese. J. Pragmat. 12 (4), 403e426. Meierkord, Christiane, 2000. Interpreting Successful Lingua Franca Interaction: an Analysis of Non-native/non-native Small-talk Conversations in English. Linguistik Online 5. http://www.linguistik-online.de/1_00/MEIERKOR.HTM. (Accessed 19 March 2018). Miller, Peggy, 1986. Teasing as language socialization and verbal play in a white working class community. In: Schieffelin, B., Ochs, E. (Eds.), Language Socialization Across Cultures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 199e212. Mitchell, Nathaniel, 2015. Goading as a social action: non-impolite evaluations in targeted banter. In: Terkourafi, M. (Ed.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Im/politeness. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 121e148. Norrick, Neal, 2003. Issues in conversational joking. J. Pragmat. 35 (9), 1333e1359. Norrick, Neal, 1993. Conversational Joking: Humor in Everyday Talk. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Pan, Yuling, 2000. Politeness in Chinese Face-to-Face Interaction. Ablex Publishing, Stamford. Pomerantz, Anita, 1978. Compliment responses: notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In: Schenkein, J. (Ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. Academic Press, New York, pp. 79e112. Pullin Stark, Patricia, 2009. No jokeethis is serious! Power, solidarity and humour in Business English as a Lingua Franca (BELF). In: Mauranen, A., Ranta, E. (Eds.), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle, pp. 152e177. Schegloff, Emanuel, 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: Volume 1: a Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Schnurr, Stephanie, Chan, Angela, 2011. When laughter is not enough. Responding to teasing and self-denigrating humour at work. J. Pragmat. 43 (1), 20e35. Seidlhofer, Barbara, 2011. Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Seidlhofer, Barbara, 2004. Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annu. Rev. Appl. Ling. 24, 209e239. Seidlhofer, Barbara, 2002. The shape of things to come? Some basic questions about English as a lingua franca. In: Knapp, K., Meierkord, C. (Eds.), Lingua Franca Communication. Peter Lang, Frankfurt/Main, pp. 269e302. Selmer, Jan, DeLeon, Corinna, 2003. Culture and management in Hong Kong SAR. In: Warner, M. (Ed.), Culture and Management in Asia. Routledge Curzon, London, pp. 48e65. Spencer-Oatey, Helen, 2008. Culturally Speaking: Culture Communication and Politeness Theory, second ed. Continuum, London. Steensig, Jakob, 2013. Conversation analysis and affiliation and alignment. In: Chapelle, C. (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Blackwell, Chichester, pp. 1e6. Steensig, Jakob, Drew, Paul, 2008. Introduction: questioning and affiliation/disaffiliation in interaction. Discourse Stud. 10 (1), 5e15. Stivers, Tanya, 2008. Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: when nodding is a token of affiliation. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 41 (1), 31e57. Stivers, Tanya, Mondada, Lorenza, Steensig, Jakob, 2011. Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In: Stivers, T., Mondada, L., Steensig, J. (Eds. ), The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 3e26. Svennevig, Jan, 1999. Getting Acquainted in Conversation: a Study of Initial Interactions. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Tang, Chen-Hsin, Zhang, Grace Qiao, 2009. A contrastive study of compliment responses among Australian English and Mandarin Chinese speakers. J. Pragmat. 41 (2), 325e345. Walkinshaw, Ian, 2016. Teasing in informal contexts in English as an Asian lingua franca. J. Engl. Lingua Franca 5 (2), 249e271. Walkinshaw, Ian, Kirkpatrick, Andy, 2014. Mutual face preservation among Asian speakers of English as a Lingua Franca. J. Engl. Lingua Franca 3 (2), 267e289. Yu, Changrong, 2013. Two interactional functions of self-mockery in everyday English conversations: a multimodal analysis. J. Pragmat. 50 (1), 1e22. Yu, Ming-Chung, 2003. On the universality of face: evidence from Chinese compliment response behaviour. J. Pragmat. 35 (10e11), 1679e1710. Ian Walkinshaw is a senior lecturer in applied linguistics in the School of Humanities, Languages and Social Science at Griffith University in Queensland, Australia. His research interests include pragmatics, English as a lingua franca and English as a medium of instruction. He recently co-edited 'English Medium Instruction in Higher Education in Asia-Pacific: From Policy to Pedagogy' (Springer, 2017), and has published research in the Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, Teaching and Teacher Education and Studies in Higher Education, among others. Nathaniel Mitchell is a lecturer in linguistics in the School of Humanities, Languages and Social Science at Griffith University, Queensland, Australia. His PhD (conferred 2017) investigated impoliteness, offence and rudeness, finding that individuals have an ability to opt-into and opt-out of being offended. His interests include pragmatics, conversation analysis, membership categorisation analysis, phonetics, sociophonetics and phonology. He has published research in the Journal of Pragmatics and in an edited book, ‘Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Im/politeness’ (edited by M. Terkourafi, John Benjamins, 2015). He has also worked on G. Docherty and P. Foulkes' Western Australian English Sociophonetic Variation Project. Sophiaan Subhan is an academic in applied linguistics in the School of Humanities, Languages and Social Science at Griffith University in Queensland, Australia. His research interests include sociolinguistics, English as a lingua franca and Asian Englishes. He has published research in edited books: Friedrich, P. (ed.), ‘English for Diplomatic Purposes’ (Multilingual Matters, 2016) and Bushfield, S. et al., (ed.), ‘The Evolution of Englishes: The Dynamic Model and Beyond’ (John Benjamins, 2014). He is a researcher and coordinator for the Asian Corpus of English.