Abstract
This paper explores the functions of the utterance-final particle -canha in modern spoken Korean. Analyzing naturally occurring spontaneous conversational data, I argue that its basic function is to explicitly mark the speaker’s belief of shared knowledge. This study suggests that -canha functions as a very useful device in managing the information flow in spontaneous conversation by enabling speakers to constantly signal other interlocutors and build common ground. This basic information-managing function can not only be used in discourse strategies (a pre-sequence and as a verbal filler), but can also be extended to express politeness and impoliteness, theticity, and mirativity. In sum, the functions of -canha discussed in this paper suggest that it is a highly intersubjective marker, in that it explicitly indicates the speaker’s awareness of and attention to the hearer’s information status and changes therein.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2017S1A6A3A01078538).
Appendix A: Abbreviations
ACC | Accusative | IMPF | Imperfective |
ADD | Additive | IMPR | Imperative |
ANT | Anterior | INCHOA | Inchoative |
ATTR(IRRL) | Attributive (Irrealis) | INDC | Indicative |
ATTR(RL) | Attributive (Realis) | INSTR | Instrumental |
CAUSL | Causal | INTER | Interrogative |
CIRCUM | Circumstantial | LOC | Locative |
CLSF | Classifier | NCOMT | Non-commitative |
COMP | Complementizer | NECESS | Necessitative |
COMT | Committal | NEG | Negative |
CON | Connective | NEG(IMPOT) | Impotential Negative |
COND | Conditional | NOM | Nominative |
CONJ | Conjunction | NOMZ | Nominalizer |
CONTRA | Contrastive | PASS | Passive |
COP | Copular | PLU | Plural |
DCT.RE | Deductive Reasoning | POL | Politeness |
DECL | Declarative | PRECED | Precedence |
DET | Determinative | PURP | Purposive |
DM | Discourse Marker | QUOT | Quotative |
DUB | Dubitative | RESUL | Resultative |
EXCL | Exclamative | TOP | Topic |
FH.EV | First Hand Evidential | UFP | Utterance Final Particle |
HON | Honorific | UNASSIM | Unassimilative |
HON.END | Honorific Ending | VOL | Volitional |
Appendix B: Transcription Conventions
The transcription conventions used the by twenty-first Century Sejong Corpus have been slightly modified by to follow transcription conventions developed by Du Bois et al. (1993).
- .
Final transitional continuity
- ,
Continuing transitional continuity
- ?
Appeal or rising intonation
- !
Booster: Higher than expected pitch on a word
- –
Truncated intonation unit
- -
Truncated word
- =
Lengthening of a segment
- []
Speech overlap
- ( )
Vocal noises
- (H)
Audible inhalation
- <X X>
Uncertain transcription; difficult to hear
- <X>
Uninterpretable syllable
- <@ @>
Laughing voice quality
- <Q Q>
Quotational vocal quality
References
Ariel, Mira. 1988. Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics 24(1). 65–87.10.1017/S0022226700011567Suche in Google Scholar
Bois, Du, W. John, Stephan Schuetze-Coburn, Susanna Cumming & Dane Paolino. 1993. Outline of discourse transcription. In Jane A Edwards & Martin D Lampert eds., Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research, 45–89. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Suche in Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1982. Nondeclaratives from an intonational standpoint. Papers from the parasession on non-declarative sentences of the 18th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 1–22. Chicago, IL: Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago.Suche in Google Scholar
Brown, Gillian. 1977. Listening to spoken English. London: Longmans.Suche in Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813085Suche in Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Joanne Scheibman. 1999. The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics 37(4). 575–596.10.1515/ling.37.4.575Suche in Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Sandra Thompson. 1997. Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistics Society 23. 65–85.10.3765/bls.v23i1.1293Suche in Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Charles N Li ed., Subject and topic, 25–55. New York: Academic Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620539Suche in Google Scholar
Cook, Haruko Minegishi. 1990. An indexical account of the Japanese sentence-final no. Discourse Processes 13(4). 401–439.10.1080/01638539009544768Suche in Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1(1). 33–52.10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33Suche in Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33(3). 369–382.10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80001-1Suche in Google Scholar
Erman, Britt. 2001. Pragmatic markers revisited with a focus on you know in adult and adolescent talk. Journal of Pragmatics 33(9). 1337–1359.10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00066-7Suche in Google Scholar
Fox Tree, Jean E & Josef C Schrock. 2002. Basic meanings of you know and I mean. Journal of Pragmatics 34(6). 727–747.10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00027-9Suche in Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg & Ron Zacharski. 1993. Cognitive status and the form or referring expressions in discourse. Language 69(2). 274–307.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199687305.013.5Suche in Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1994. Ritualization and the development of language. In William Pagliuca ed., Perspectives on grammaticalization, 3–28. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.109.07haiSuche in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English Part 2. Journal of Linguistics 3(2). 199–244.10.1017/S0022226700016613Suche in Google Scholar
Heinz, Bettina. 2003. Backchannel responses as strategic responses in bilingual speakers’ conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 35(7). 1113–1142.10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00190-XSuche in Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 2002. The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content. Journal of Pragmatics 34(10). 1427–1446.10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00072-3Suche in Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah. 2000. K-ToBI (Korean ToBI) labelling convention (version 3.1). UC: LA. Working Paper in Phonetics 99.Suche in Google Scholar
Kawanishi, Yumiko. 1994. An analysis of interactional markers in Korean: A comparative study of -canh-a(yo) vs. -ci(yo). Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics 5. East Asian Linguistics. 82–100.Suche in Google Scholar
Keisanen, Tiina. 2006. Patterns of stance taking: Negative yes/no interrogatives and tag questions in American English conversation. Oulu: Oulu University dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Kim, Ahrim. 2015. The pragmatics and evolution of the utterance-final particles -ketun and -canha in Modern Spoken Korean. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Koo, Hyun Jung. 2008. Ani, an hanun key anicanha”: Pwuceng phyohyenuy mwunpephwa [Grammaticalization of negation markers in Korean]. Tamhwawa Inci [Discourse and Cognition] 15(3). 1–27.Suche in Google Scholar
Krylova, Olga A & Serafima A Khavronina. 1988. Word order in Russian. Moscow: Nauka.Suche in Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1972. Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry 3(3). 269–320.Suche in Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1978. Generative discourse analysis in America. In Wolfgang U Dressler ed., Current trends in textlinguistics, 275–294. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110853759.275Suche in Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620607Suche in Google Scholar
Lee, Hyun-Hee. 2004. ‘-canh’un tanci ‘-ci anh-’uy umwunloncek chwukyakhyenginka? [Is ‘-canh’ merely a phonological reduction form of ‘-ci anh’?]. Hankwukehak [Korean Linguistics] 23. 203–228.Suche in Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813313Suche in Google Scholar
Luke, Kang-kwong, Sandra A Thompson & Tsuyoshi Ono. 2012. Turns and increments: A comparative perspective. Discourse Processes 49(3/4). 155–162.10.1080/0163853X.2012.664110Suche in Google Scholar
Macaulay, Ronald. 2002. You know, it depends. Journal of Pragmatics 34(6). 749–767.10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00005-4Suche in Google Scholar
Macías, García & José Hugo. 2014. Mirative meanings and their grammaticalization sources. Paper presented at the 40th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California: Berkeley, 7 February.Suche in Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura. 1994. Expectation contravention and use ambiguity: The Vietnamese connective cũng. Journal of Pragmatics 21(1). 1–36.10.1016/0378-2166(94)90045-0Suche in Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura. 2001. Exclamative constructions. In Martin Haspelmath ed., Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, 1038–1058. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110194265-016Suche in Google Scholar
Min-Ha, Jo. 2011. Yenkyelemiuy congkyelkinungkwa ekyanguy yekhal [A study on the finalizing function of connective endings and the role of intonation]. Seoul: Korea University dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Nam, Ki Sim & Young Geun Ko. 1985. Phyocwunkwukemwunpeplon [The standard Korean grammar]. Seoul: Tahpchwulphansa.Suche in Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Peter Cole ed., Radical Pragmatics, 223–255. New York: Academic Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1992. The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness and information-status. In William Charles Mann & Sandra Annear Thompson eds., Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text, 295–325. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.16.12priSuche in Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha. 2004. Grammaticalization and lexicalization of rhetorical questions in Korean. Hyentay Mwunpep Yenkwu [Studies in Modern Grammar] 35. 111–139.Suche in Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1987. The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25(3). 511–580.10.1515/ling.1987.25.3.511Suche in Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 2006. Theticity. In Giuliano Bernini & Marcia L Schwartz eds., Pragmatic organization of discourse in the languages of Europe, 255–310. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Suche in Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2000. On a turn’s possible completion, more or less: Increments and trail-offs. Paper presented at the Conference on Interactional Linguistics, Spa, Belgium.Suche in Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. vol. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511791208Suche in Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511611841Suche in Google Scholar
Schmerling, Susan. F. 1976. Aspects of English sentence stress. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.10.7560/703124Suche in Google Scholar
Sohn, Sung-Ock. S. 2010. The role of frequency and prosody in the grammaticalization of Korean -canh-. In An Van Linden, Jean-Christophe Verstraete & Kristin Davidse eds., Formal evidence in grammaticalization research, 245–273. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.94.09sohSuche in Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens eds., Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization, 29–71. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110226102.1.29Suche in Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher. 2001. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486500Suche in Google Scholar
Turk, Monica J. 1999. Negatively formulated questions interaction. Paper presented at the CLIC-LISO conference, University of California: Santa Barbara.Suche in Google Scholar
Weher, Barbara. 1984. Diskursstrategien im Romanischen. Tübingen: Narr.Suche in Google Scholar
Yngve, Victor H. 1970. On getting a word in edgewise. Papers from the 6th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society, 567–578. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- The probability of external causation: An empirical account of crosslinguistic variation in lexical causatives
- Why use or?
- Utterance-final particle -canha in modern spoken Korean: A marker of shared knowledge, (im)politeness, theticity and mirativity
- Strong pronouns in modern spoken French: Cliticization, constructionalization, grammaticalization?
- Korean converbs between coordination and subordination
- Asymmetries of null subjects and null objects in L1-English and L1-Japanese learners’ Chinese
- Synaesthesia in Chinese: A corpus-based study on gustatory adjectives in Mandarin
- Publications received between 2 June 2017 and 1 June 2018
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- The probability of external causation: An empirical account of crosslinguistic variation in lexical causatives
- Why use or?
- Utterance-final particle -canha in modern spoken Korean: A marker of shared knowledge, (im)politeness, theticity and mirativity
- Strong pronouns in modern spoken French: Cliticization, constructionalization, grammaticalization?
- Korean converbs between coordination and subordination
- Asymmetries of null subjects and null objects in L1-English and L1-Japanese learners’ Chinese
- Synaesthesia in Chinese: A corpus-based study on gustatory adjectives in Mandarin
- Publications received between 2 June 2017 and 1 June 2018