The in-group ritual of self-denigration in Iranian doctoral defense sessions: applied linguists’ attitudes, functions and perceptions in focus

Nadia Mayahi; Alireza Jalilifar

doi:10.1515/pr-2022-0053

Article

The in-group ritual of self-denigration in Iranian doctoral defense sessions: applied linguists’ attitudes, functions and perceptions in focus

Nadia Mayahi
Nadia Mayahi received her PhD from Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz in 2022. She has been an English language teacher for 23 years. Currently, she is the director of a student research center at Education Department in Mahshahr where she lives. She has published and presented papers on English Language Teaching and PhD defense sessions. Her main research interests are discourse analysis and sociology of language.
and Alireza Jalilifar
Alireza Jalilifar is professor of Applied Linguistics at Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Iran, where he teaches discourse analysis, applied linguistics and advanced research. He has published and presented papers on academic discourses. He was the leading researcher at Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz in 2009, 2010, & 2020. Jalilifar has supervised more than 70 MA and 30 PhD theses in Iran. His main interests include second language writing, genre analysis, and academic discourse.

Published/Copyright: August 11, 2023

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Journal of Politeness Research Volume 20 Issue 2

Abstract

Drawing on a Symbolic Interactionist perspective and the Grounded Theory methodology, this study aimed to explore self-denigration from the perspective of Iranian applied linguists highlighting the significance of self-denigration as an in-group relational ritual in Iranian doctoral defense sessions. The data were obtained from rigorous coding of the transcripts of two focus groups and a questionnaire built on the findings of the focus group discussions. The findings indicated significant gender differences in terms of the participants’ attitudes toward the functions and meanings of self-denigration. Academic experience was also found to be an important factor in how the participants perceived self-denigration. Through a meticulous analysis of self-denigration in doctoral defense sessions, the present study sheds light on the norms and conventions of the academic discourse of defense sessions, thereby justifying the rights and obligations of the defense session participants.

Keywords: academic discourse; doctoral defense; in-group rituals; politeness; self-denigration

Corresponding author: Alireza Jalilifar, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Khuzestan, Iran, E-mail: ar.jalilifar@gmail.com

Funding source: Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz

Award Identifier / Grant number: 1396

About the authors

Nadia Mayahi

Nadia Mayahi received her PhD from Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz in 2022. She has been an English language teacher for 23 years. Currently, she is the director of a student research center at Education Department in Mahshahr where she lives. She has published and presented papers on English Language Teaching and PhD defense sessions. Her main research interests are discourse analysis and sociology of language.

Alireza Jalilifar

Alireza Jalilifar is professor of Applied Linguistics at Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Iran, where he teaches discourse analysis, applied linguistics and advanced research. He has published and presented papers on academic discourses. He was the leading researcher at Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz in 2009, 2010, & 2020. Jalilifar has supervised more than 70 MA and 30 PhD theses in Iran. His main interests include second language writing, genre analysis, and academic discourse.

Appendix 1: Consent form

Purpose of the research

This study aims to document and understand the experiences of faculty members and doctoral students in terms of self-denigration in defense sessions. It mainly answers the questions of “How is self-denigration perceived by the participants in a defense session?”, “How do the participants in a defense session achieve relational connection or separation through self-denigration?” And “what are the underlying incentives or functions of self-denigration in a defense session interaction?”.

What is involved in participating

Your participation means you agree to complete a demographic form and to participate in a focus group discussion. The anonymized data may be available for other members of the research team comprising the supervisor and the advisor. You can choose whether or not to participate in the focus group and stop at any time. Although the focus group will be audio-recorded, your responses will remain anonymous and no names will be mentioned in the report. There are no right or wrong answers to the focus group discussions. We want to hear many different viewpoints and would like to hear from everyone. We hope you can be honest even when your responses may not be in agreement with the rest of the group.

Dissemination of the results

This project will primarily come out as the doctoral dissertation of the major researcher. Beyond this, the results may be presented at professional conferences and submitted for peer review and publication in professional journals.

Privacy and confidentiality

You will be assigned an alias. Any information that may reveal your identity will NOT appear in any report of any form. All the recordings, transcripts, demographic information, and observation notes will be kept confidential. If data from this study are used for other purposes than what has been indicated above, your consent will be sought.

Consent

I have read the above and I understand all of the conditions. I freely give consent and voluntarily agree to participate in the above aspects of this study. I understand that my identity will be protected and that all records will be coded to guarantee anonymity and audiotapes will be used only for research purposes.

Participant’s Name: …………………. Participant’s Signature: ………………….

Appendix 2: Focus group discussion questions

Questions
Introductory	1. Do you self-denigrate in your everyday life? How? Why?
Opening	2. What does self-denigration mean to you?
Transition	3. Do participants in the academic context of a defense session self-denigrate? How?
Key	4. Who do you think tends to self-denigrate more in a defense session, the examiner, the supervisor/advisor, or the candidate? Why?
	5. What makes the defense session participants denigrate themselves toward their interlocutors?
	6. Do participants self-denigrate to achieve relational connection with or separation from their interlocutors? How?
Ending	7. Is there anything else you would like to say about why participants self-denigrate in a defense session?

Appendix 3: The questionnaire on self-denigration in applied linguistics doctoral defense sessions

	Indicators
1	The purpose of self-denigration in defense sessions is being polite, observing deference, and observing morality
2	The purpose of self-denigration in defense sessions is respecting the knowledge and expertise of the examiners, supervisor, or advisor
3	Self-denigration in defense sessions is used for saving self and other’s face
4	Self-denigration in defense sessions is showing appreciation
5	Self-denigration in defense sessions indicates obedience and a less presumptuous attitude
6	Self-denigration in defense sessions indicates lack of arrogance and egoism
7	Self-denigration in defense sessions indicates modesty and humility
8	The purpose of self-denigration in defense sessions is building relational connections with others
9	Self-denigration in defense sessions is used to build mutual trust
10	Self-denigration in defense sessions is used to maintain interpersonal relationships
11	Self-denigration in defense sessions indicates considerateness and caring for others
12	Self-denigration in defense sessions indicates goodwill
13	Self-denigration in defense sessions might be used for motivating others
14	Self-denigration in defense sessions might be used for approving others
15	Self-denigration in defense sessions is the projection of self-confidence
16	Self-denigration in defense sessions is the manifestation of knowledgeability and competence
17	Self-denigration in defense sessions might be used as a polite defense of one’s stance and personal opinions
18	Self-denigration in defense sessions might be a technique for expressing one’s opinions vigorously
19	Self-denigration in defense sessions is an unwritten rule
20	Self-denigration in defense sessions is imposed humility.
21	Self-denigration in defense sessions is essential and inevitable
22	Self-denigration in defense sessions is recommended
23	Self-denigration in defense sessions might be a sign of uncertainty
24	Self-denigration in defense sessions might indicate admitting inadequacy of knowledge
25	Self-denigration in defense sessions might indicate accepting weaknesses and shortcomings
26	Self-denigration in defense sessions might indicate seeking protection and confirmation
27	Due to the nature of the defense session, self-denigration in defense sessions is used to avoid criticism
28	The purpose of self-denigration in defense sessions, due to the critical nature of the defense session, is avoiding conflict
29	Self-denigration in defense sessions is used to avoid negative consequences and punishment
30	Self-denigration in defense sessions is a kind of conservativeness
31	Self-denigration in defense sessions might be used for fulfilling one’s personal purposes like getting a score
32	Self-denigration in defense sessions is used to compromise with criticisms
33	Self-denigration in defense sessions is expedient and might be fake
34	The purpose of self-denigration in defense sessions might be showing off
35	The purpose of self-denigration in defense sessions might be hypocrisy
36	The purpose of self-denigration in defense sessions might be attention-seeking
37	The purpose of self-denigration in defense sessions might be seeking praise and affection

Appendix 4: Observed frequencies of the indicators

Factors	Indicators	Strongly agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Chi-square
Good manners	Q1	69	121	24	4	148.862^a
	Q2	71	121	21	5	151.688^a
	Q3	36	122	54	6	133.046^a
	Total	176	364	99	15	407.150^a
Modesty	Q4	22	116	67	13	123.248^a
	Q5	28	103	73	14	92.422^a
	Q6	26	130	47	15	149.156^a
	Q7	39	135	36	8	169.266^a
	Total	115	484	223	50	502.817^a
Affability	Q8	23	102	85	8	116.349^a
	Q9	26	124	63	5	149.817^a
	Q10	30	145	41	2	215.211^a
	Total	79	371	189	15	445.865^a
Altruism	Q11	35	131	44	8	156.055^a
	Q12	12	89	97	20	109.963^a
	Q13	13	97	91	17	114.991^a
	Q14	15	144	48	11	211.101^a
	Total	75	461	280	56	502.688^a
Assertiveness	Q15	14	68	111	25	107.982^a
	Q16	13	77	114	14	135.945^a
	Q17	41	135	39	3	175.321^a
	Q18	28	88	85	17	76.349^a
	Total	96	368	349	59	366.174^a
Coercive self-deprecation	Q19	60	107	43	8	93.229^a
	Q20	24	69	100	25	74.881^a
	Q21	25	79	94	20	77.450^a
	Q22	30	101	74	13	89.266^a
	Total	139	356	311	66	261.642^a
Diffidence	Q23	11	92	102	13	133.523^a
	Q24	11	85	92	30	88.606^a
	Q25	12	107	73	26	104.899^a
	Q26	32	141	37	8	191.872^a
	Total	66	425	304	77	427.661^a
Evasion	Q27	27	125	61	5	150.807^a
	Q28	41	124	45	8	133.303^a
	Q29	33	115	62	8	116.349^a
	Total	101	364	168	21	394.086^a
Diplomacy	Q30	54	124	35	5	140.569^a
	Q31	43	114	53	8	107.101^a
	Q32	31	146	38	3	217.413^a
	Q33	76	112	28	2	132.606^a
	Total	204	496	154	18	557.688^a
Flamboyance	Q34	28	80	92	18	75.064^a
	Q35	50	116	45	7	112.826^a
	Q36	23	110	72	13	111.945^a
	Q37	31	127	52	8	146.367^a
	Total	132	433	261	46	390.156^a

^a0 cells (0.0 %) have expected frequencies less than 5. (df = 3, P-value = 0.000).

References

Arundale, Robert, B. 2006. Face as relational and interactional: A communication framework for research on face, facework, and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behavior, Culture 2(2). 193–217. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr.2006.011.Search in Google Scholar

Arundale, Robert, B. 2010. Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework, and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics 42(8). 2078–2105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021.Search in Google Scholar

Brown, Robyn. 2019. Self-defeating vs. self-deprecating humor: A case of being laughed at vs. Laughed with? Melbourne: Swinburne University of Technology.Search in Google Scholar

Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1978. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. New York: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Burch, Alfred Rue. 2017. My Japanese isn’t that good: Self-deprecation, preference organization, and interactional competence. In Tim Greer, Midori Ishida & Yumiko Tateyama (eds.), Interactional competence in Japanese as an additional language, 19–50. Honolulu: University of Hawaii National Foreign Language Resource Center.Search in Google Scholar

Charmaz, Kathy. 2014. Constructing grounded theory, 2nd edn. London: Sage Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Chen, Rong. 1993. Responding to compliments: A contrastive study of politeness strategies between American English and Chinese speakers. Journal of Pragmatics 20(1). 49–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90106-y.Search in Google Scholar

Daneshvar, Maryam, Ali Asghar Kargar & Arash Zareian. 2017. A Pragmatic analysis of the interactions in MA TEFL students’ defense sessions. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research 4(7). 217–235.Search in Google Scholar

Dobson, Stephen. 2018. Assessing the viva in higher education: Chasing moments of truth. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-64016-7Search in Google Scholar

Don, Zuraidah Mohd & Ahmad Izadi. 2011. Relational connection and separation in Iranian dissertation defences. Journal of Pragmatics 43(15). 3782–3792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.010.Search in Google Scholar

Don, Zuraidah Mohd & Ahmad Izadi. 2013. Interactionally achieving face in criticism criticism-response exchanges. Language & Communication 33(3). 221–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2013.05.003.Search in Google Scholar

Fairclough, Norman. 2003. Analyzing discourse: Textual analysis for social discourse. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203697078Search in Google Scholar

Fraser, Bruce. 1990. Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 14. 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90081-n.Search in Google Scholar

Fraser, Bruce & William Nolen. 1981. The association of deference with linguistic form. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 1981(27). 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1981.27.93.Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1955. On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry 18(3). 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008.Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction ritual. Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Pantheon Books.Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1983. The interaction order. American Sociological Association 48(1). 1–17. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095141.Search in Google Scholar

Gu, Yueguo. 1990. Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 14(2). 237–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90082-o.Search in Google Scholar

Haugh, Michael, Bethan L. Davies & Andrew John Merrison. 2011. Situating politeness. In Bethan L. Davies, Michael Haugh & Andrew John Merrison (eds.), Situated politeness, 1–23. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.Search in Google Scholar

Hay, Jennifer. 2001. The pragmatics of humor support. Humor 14(1). 55–82. https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.14.1.55.Search in Google Scholar

Hill, Beverly, Sachiko Ide, Ikuta Shoko, Akiko Kawasaki & Tsunao Ogino. 1986. Universals of linguistics politeness: Quantitative evidence from Japanese and American English. Journal of Pragmatics 10. 347–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(86)90006-8.Search in Google Scholar

Huth, Thorsten. 2021. Interaction, language use, and second language teaching. New York & London: Routledge.10.4324/9781003017356Search in Google Scholar

Izadi, Ahmad. 2017a. Culture-generality and culture-specificity of face: Insights from argumentative talk in Iranian dissertation defenses. Pragmatics and Society 8(2). 208–230. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.8.2.03iza.Search in Google Scholar

Izadi, Ahmad. 2017b. Mixed messages in criticisms in Iranian PhD dissertation defenses. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice 11(3). 270–291. https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.35211.Search in Google Scholar

Izadi, Ahmad. 2017c. Turn-taking, preference, and face in criticism responses. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics 8(1). 72–88.Search in Google Scholar

Izadi, Ahmad & Alireza Jalilifar. 2010. Politeness in LAP assessment: Dissertation defense sessions in focus. Iranian Journal of TEFLL 2(2). 71–90.Search in Google Scholar

Jalilifar, Alireza & Nadia Mayahi. 2022. Referral for resubmission: Scholarly expectations of EFL applied linguistics doctoral defense sessions. European Journal of Applied Linguistics 11(1). 160–189. https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2021-0009.Search in Google Scholar

Kádár, Dániel Z. 2010. Exploring the historical Chinese polite denigration/elevation phenomenon. In Jonathan Culpeper & Dániel Z. Kádár (eds.), Historical (im)politeness, 117–145. Peter Lang: Bern.Search in Google Scholar

Kádár, Dániel Z. 2013. Relational rituals and communication: Ritual interaction in groups. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230393059Search in Google Scholar

Kádár, Dániel Z. 2019. Politeness and impoliteness in Chinese discourse. In Chris Shei (ed.), The Routledge handbook of Chinese discourse analysis, 203–215. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315213705-14Search in Google Scholar

Kádár, Dániel Z. & Michael Haugh. 2013. Understanding politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139382717Search in Google Scholar

Kádár, Dániel Z. & Juliane House. 2020. Introduction: What are rituals? Fifteeneightyfour. http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2020/06/introduction-what-are-rituals/ (accessed 19 November 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Kádár, Dániel Z. & Ling Zhou. 2021. Self-denigration in 21st century Chinese. Journal of Politeness Research Language Behaviour Culture 17(2). 265–289. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2018-0043.Search in Google Scholar

Kim, Mary Shin & Eun Young Bae. 2022. The double-edged practice of self-praise and self-denigration in Korean public discourse. In Chaoqun Xie & Ying Tong (eds.), Self-praise across cultures and contexts, 261–291. Cham: Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-030-99217-0_12Search in Google Scholar

Kim, Myung-Hee. 2014. Why self-deprecating? Achieving ‘oneness’ in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 69. 82–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.03.004.Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, Robin Tolmach. 1990. Talking power: The politics of language in our lives. Glasgow: Basic Books.Search in Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey. N. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London & New York: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey. N. 2005. Politeness: Is there an East-West divide? Journal of Foreign Languages 6(6). 3–31.Search in Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey. N. 2014. The pragmatics of politeness. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Mayahi, Nadia & Alireza Jalilifar. 2022a. Self-denigration in doctoral defense sessions: Scale development and validation. ESP Today 10(1). 2–24. https://doi.org/10.18485/esptoday.2022.10.1.3.Search in Google Scholar

Mayahi, Nadia & Alireza Jalilifar. 2022b. Self-denigration in academic discourse: The case of the Iranian doctoral defense. Functions of Language 29(3). 300–327. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.22021.may.Search in Google Scholar

Mežek, Špela & John M. Swales. 2016. PhD defences and vivas. In Ken Hyland & Philp Shaw (eds.), The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes, 361–375. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Murray, Rowena. 2009. How to survive your viva: Defending a thesis in an oral examination. Maidenhead & Philadelphia: Open University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Page, Ruth. 2019. Self-denigration and the mixed messages of ‘ugly’ selfies in Instagram. Internet Pragmatics 2(2). 173–205. https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00035.pag.Search in Google Scholar

Preuss, Gregory S. & Mark D. Alicke. 2017. My worst faults and misdeeds: Self-criticism and self-enhancement can co-exist. Self and Identity 16(6). 645–663. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2017.1296019.Search in Google Scholar

Recski, Leonardo. 2005. Interpersonal engagement in academic spoken discourse: A functional account of dissertation defenses. English for Specific Purposes 24(1). 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2003.07.001.Search in Google Scholar

Sharifian, Farzad. 2005. Persian cultural schema of shekasteh-nafsi: A study of compliment responses in Persian and Anglo-Australian speakers. Pragmatics and Cognition 13(2). 337–361. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.13.2.05sha.Search in Google Scholar

Sharifian, Farzad. 2017. Cultural linguistics: Cultural conceptualizations and language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/clscc.8Search in Google Scholar

Speer, Susan A. 2019. Reconsidering self-deprecation as communication practice. British Journal of Social Psychology 58(4). 806–828. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12329.Search in Google Scholar

Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2008. (Im)Politeness and rapport. In Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally speaking culture, communication and politeness theory, 11–47. London & New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.Search in Google Scholar

Swales, John. 2004. Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524827Search in Google Scholar

Walkinshaw, Ian, Nathaniel Mitchell & Sophiaan Subhan. 2019. Self-denigration as a relational strategy in lingua franca talk: Asian English speaker. Journal of Pragmatics 139. 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.10.013.Search in Google Scholar

Watts, Richard J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Yu, Changrong. 2013. Two interactional functions of self-mockery in everyday English conversations: A multimodal analysis. Journal of Pragmatics 50(1). 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.006.Search in Google Scholar

Zainuddin, Siti Zaidah, Alexander Charles Damiano-Nittoli & Azlin Zaiti Zainal. 2019. Hedging functions in Malaysian doctoral candidature defense sessions. Sage Open 9(4). 1–13.10.1177/2158244019894275Search in Google Scholar

Zare, Java. 2016. Self-mockery: A study of Persian multi-party interactions. Text & Talk 36(6). 789–812, https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2016-0034.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2022-11-15

Accepted: 2023-06-20

Published Online: 2023-08-11

Published in Print: 2024-07-26

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2022-0053

Keywords for this article

academic discourse; doctoral defense; in-group rituals; politeness; self-denigration