Startseite Utterance-final particle -canha in modern spoken Korean: A marker of shared knowledge, (im)politeness, theticity and mirativity
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Utterance-final particle -canha in modern spoken Korean: A marker of shared knowledge, (im)politeness, theticity and mirativity

  • Ahrim Kim EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 28. Juli 2018

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

ACCAccusativeIMPFImperfective
ADDAdditiveIMPRImperative
ANTAnteriorINCHOAInchoative
ATTR(IRRL)Attributive (Irrealis)INDCIndicative
ATTR(RL)Attributive (Realis)INSTRInstrumental
CAUSLCausalINTERInterrogative
CIRCUMCircumstantialLOCLocative
CLSFClassifierNCOMTNon-commitative
COMPComplementizerNECESSNecessitative
COMTCommittalNEGNegative
CONConnectiveNEG(IMPOT)Impotential Negative
CONDConditionalNOMNominative
CONJConjunctionNOMZNominalizer
CONTRAContrastivePASSPassive
COPCopularPLUPlural
DCT.REDeductive ReasoningPOLPoliteness
DECLDeclarativePRECEDPrecedence
DETDeterminativePURPPurposive
DMDiscourse MarkerQUOTQuotative
DUB DubitativeRESULResultative
EXCLExclamativeTOPTopic
FH.EVFirst Hand EvidentialUFPUtterance Final Particle
HONHonorificUNASSIMUnassimilative
HON.ENDHonorific EndingVOLVolitional

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

Published Online: 2018-07-28
Published in Print: 2018-08-28

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Heruntergeladen am 8.9.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/ling-2018-0016/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen