Divergence in uncertainty: the Korean non-committal suffix -(u)lkel
-
Don Lee
Don Lee received his PhD in Asian Languages and Culture from the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and is currently a professor of Korean and Japanese at Mt. San Antonio College in Walnut, California. His research interests are in the areas of interactional linguistics and conversation analysis. His research focuses on the intersection of language and social interaction and how a usage-based understanding of language can be applied to language teaching.
Abstract
This study explores the Korean final suffix -(u)lkel in the context of stance-taking within the framework of stance triangle and the notion of emergent stance. Using data from one hundred 30-minute telephone calls and 15 video recorded conversations totaling 270 min, this study examines the non-committal epistemic function of -(u)lkel from a conversation analytic approach and demonstrates how speakers mobilize this suffix as a divergent alignment stance marker when confronted with a conflicting, yet unclear understanding of information associated with a stance object. Moreover, the high intonational boundary tone associated with -(u)lkel cedes the floor to the recipient where a negotiation of the conflicting information offers an opportunity for a readjustment of positions towards either a converging-diverging alignment or disalignment (i.e., speakers’ abandonment of a shared stance object). As such, this study shows that a grammatical suffix such as -(u)lkel is not simply deployed to mark propositional information but is also utilized as an interactional resource that enables dialogic speech activities such as co-construction of stance.
About the author
Don Lee received his PhD in Asian Languages and Culture from the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and is currently a professor of Korean and Japanese at Mt. San Antonio College in Walnut, California. His research interests are in the areas of interactional linguistics and conversation analysis. His research focuses on the intersection of language and social interaction and how a usage-based understanding of language can be applied to language teaching.
Appendix I: Abbreviations
| ACC | Accusative Case | LOC | Locative Case |
| ATTR | Attributive | NEG | Negation |
| CIRCUM | Circumstantial | NOM | Nominative Case |
| COMM | Committal | NML | Nominalizer |
| COP | Copula | POL | Polite Speech Ender |
| DC | Declarative | PST | Past Tense/Perfect Aspect |
| DM | Discourse Marker | PURP | Purposive |
| HS | Hearsay Evidential | Q | Interrogative |
| INF | Infinitive | RESUL | Resultative |
| INT | Intimate Speech Ender | SUP | Suppositive |
| IMPFV | Imperfective | TOP | Topic marker |
Appendix II: Transcription conventions
| [ | Beginning of an overlap or simultaneous talk |
| ] | End of an overlap or simultaneous talk |
| = | Contiguous utterance; there is no discernible pause between two utterances |
| . | Falling intonation |
| ? | Rising intonation; not necessarily a question |
| , | Slightly rising intonation marking continuation; not necessarily a clause boundary |
| (1.0) | Length of pause |
| - | A glottal stop; cut-off |
| :: | Sound stretches |
| .hhh | Inhaling |
| hhh | Exhaling or laughing; number of h corresponds to length |
References
Ahn, Jeong-A. 2000. Hyentaykwuke-uy mwunpephwa hyensang [Grammaticalization in modern Korean]. In Jongseon Hong (ed.), Hyentaykwuke-uy hyengseng-kwa pyenchen [Development and change in modern Korean] 1, 415–466. Seoul: Pakiceng Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199263882.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace & Johanna Nichols (eds.). 1986. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Search in Google Scholar
Clift, Rebecca. 2006. Indexing stance: Reported speech as an interactional evidential. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10(5). 569–595. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2006.00296.x.Search in Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Margret Selting. 2018. Interactional linguistics: An introduction to language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781139507318Search in Google Scholar
Du Bois, John. 2007. The stance triangle. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.164.07duSearch in Google Scholar
Du Bois, John. 2011. Co-opting intersubjectivity. In Christian Meyer & Felix Girke (eds.), The rhetorical emergence of culture, 52–83. New York & Oxford: Berghahn Books.Search in Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara, Sandra Thompson, Cecilia Ford & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2012. Conversation analysis and linguistics. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 726–740. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118325001.ch36Search in Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara, Trevor Benjamin & Harrie Mazeland. 2013. Conversation analysis and repair organization: Overview. In Carol Chappele (ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics, 1094–1097. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1314Search in Google Scholar
Givón, Thomas. 1982. Evidentiality and epistemic space. Studies in Language 6. 23–49.10.1075/sl.6.1.03givSearch in Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 1979. The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In George Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, 97–121. New York: Irvington.Search in Google Scholar
Han, Na-Rae, David Graff & Myeonchul Kim. 2003. Korean telephone conversations lexicon. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Search in Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984a. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Search in Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984b. A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (ed.), Structure of social action, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511665868.020Search in Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 2012. The epistemic engine: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45. 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684.Search in Google Scholar
Hirschberg, Julia & Gregory Ward. 1995. The interpretation of the high-rise question contour in English. Journal of Pragmatics 24. 407–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00056-k.Search in Google Scholar
Jeong, Seunggon. 2018. The discourse-pragmatic uses of the Korean interrogative sentence enders -na/-(u)nka, -nya, and -ni. Los Angeles, CA: University of California dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Ju, Hee & Sung-Ock Sohn. 2013. Sequential context of -canh-a(yo): Hearer’s perspective. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 20. 1–15.Search in Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah. 1993/1996. The phonetics and phonology of Korean prosody: Intonational phonology and prosodic structure. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Kamio, Akio. 1997. Territory of information. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.48Search in Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2003a. Epistemic stance in English conversation: A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I think. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.115Search in Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2007. The role of I guess in conversational stance-taking. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), Stance-taking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 183–219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.164.08karSearch in Google Scholar
Kawanishi, Yumiko & Sung-Ock Sohn. 1993. Grammaticization of Korean negation: A semantic-pragmatic analysis of -canh-a(yo). In Susumu Kuno, Ik-Hwan Lee, John Whitman, Joan Maling, Young-Se Kang & Young-Joo Kim (eds.), Proceedings of Harvard studies in Korean linguistics 5, 552–561. Cambridge, MA: The Harvard ISOKL Committee.Search in Google Scholar
Kim, Kyu-Hyun & Kyung-Hee Suh. 2010. The sentence-ending suffix -ketun in Korean conversation with reference to -nuntey: Sequence organization and management of epistemic rights. Tamhwa-wa inji [Discourse and Cognition] 17(3). 1–38. https://doi.org/10.15718/discog.2010.17.3.39.Search in Google Scholar
Kim, Mary. 2005. Evidentiality in achieving entitlement, objectivity, and detachment in Korean conversation. Discourse Studies 7(1). 87–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605048768.Search in Google Scholar
Kim, Mary. 2011. Negotiating epistemic rights to information in Korean conversation: An examination of the Korean evidential marker -tamye. Discourse Studies 13(4). 435–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611403259.Search in Google Scholar
Kim, Mary. 2014. Reported thought as a stance-taking device in Korean conversation. Discourse Processes 51(3). 230–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853x.2013.862479.Search in Google Scholar
Koshik, Irene. 2003. Wh-questions used as challenges. Discourse Studies 5(1). 51–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456030050010301.Search in Google Scholar
Koshik, Irene. 2005. Beyond rhetorical questions: Assertive questions in everyday interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/sidag.16Search in Google Scholar
Lee, Hyo Sang. 1991. Tense, aspect, and modality: A discourse-pragmatic analysis of verbal affixes in Korean from a typological perspective. Los Angeles, CA: University of California dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Lee, Hyo Sang. 1993. Cognitive constraints on expressing newly perceived information: With reference to epistemic modal suffixes in Korean. Cognitive Linguistics 4(2). 135–167. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.2.135.Search in Google Scholar
Lee, Hyo Sang. 1994. Discourse-pragmatic functions of sentence-type suffixes in Korean. In Young-Key Kim-Renaud (ed.), Theoretical issues in Korean linguistics, 517–539. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Search in Google Scholar
Lee, Hyo Sang. 1999. A discourse-pragmatic analysis of the committal -ci in Korean: A synthetic approach to the form-meaning relation. Journal of Pragmatics 31. 243–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(98)00066-6.Search in Google Scholar
Lee, Hyo Sang. 2015. Tense and aspect. In Lucien Brown & Jaehoon Yeon (ed.), The handbook of Korean linguistics, 232–248. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118371008.ch13Search in Google Scholar
Linell, Per. 2009. Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically. Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, Samuel. 1992. A reference grammar of Korean. Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle.Search in Google Scholar
Park, Mee-Jeong. 2003. The meaning of Korean prosodic boundary tones. Los Angeles, CA: University of California dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Park, Yong-Yae. 1997. A cross-linguistic study of the use of contrastive connectives in English, Korean, and Japanese conversation. Los Angeles, CA: University of California dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha. 2011. Nominalization and stance marking in Korean. In Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds.), Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives, 393–422. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.96.14rheSearch in Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-Min. 2001. The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Sohn, Sung-Ock. 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 (Typological Studies in Language 95), 245–274. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.94.09sohSearch in Google Scholar
Terasaki, Alene K. [2004] 1976. Pre-announcement sequences in conversation. In Gene Lerner (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 171–223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.125.11terSearch in Google Scholar
The National Institute of Korean Language. 2005. Hankwuk-e mwunpep [Korean grammar] 2. Seoul: Communication Books.Search in Google Scholar
Yeon, Jaehoon & Lucien Brown. 2011. Korean: A comprehensive grammar. Abingdon: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Guest Editorial
- Editorial
- Research Articles
- Stancetaking in motion: stance triangle and double dialogicality
- The use of animal classifiers as a stance negotiation strategy in Cantonese interactional discourse
- Questioning Chinese government officials on a live broadcast TV program: shifted second-person pronouns and journalists’ stance and identity
- “Hypophora” and “question cascade” in Cantonese political discourse: the stance triangle and the use of rhetorical moves and utterance final particles
- On the face-threat attenuating functions of Korean com: implications for internal and external dialogic processing in interaction
- Divergence in uncertainty: the Korean non-committal suffix -(u)lkel
- Epilogue
- Epilogue: commentary on stancetaking in motion
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Guest Editorial
- Editorial
- Research Articles
- Stancetaking in motion: stance triangle and double dialogicality
- The use of animal classifiers as a stance negotiation strategy in Cantonese interactional discourse
- Questioning Chinese government officials on a live broadcast TV program: shifted second-person pronouns and journalists’ stance and identity
- “Hypophora” and “question cascade” in Cantonese political discourse: the stance triangle and the use of rhetorical moves and utterance final particles
- On the face-threat attenuating functions of Korean com: implications for internal and external dialogic processing in interaction
- Divergence in uncertainty: the Korean non-committal suffix -(u)lkel
- Epilogue
- Epilogue: commentary on stancetaking in motion
