1887
Volume 18, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0257-3784
  • E-ISSN: 2212-9731

Abstract

Abstract

This study examines discourse functions of Korean ‘yes’ words from an interactional perspective based on naturally-occurring conversation data. Tokens of and in Korean are widely recognized as affirmative responses. A close examination of these tokens, however, reveals wide-ranging interactional functions through which speakers express active engagement, share information, negotiate meaning, and maintain discourse coherence. The present study identifies a total of fifteen discourse-pragmatic functions of Korean ‘yes’ words: (1) affirmative answer, (2) confirmation, (3) acceptance, (4) agreement, (5) answer to summons, (6) acknowledgement, (7) change-of-state, (8) change-of-activity, (9) response solicitation, (10) reinforcement, (11) other initiation of repair, (12) closing of phone call, (13) continuer, (14) proposal to discontinue the on-going action for the sake of a larger course of action, and (15) arguably hesitation marker. This study demonstrates that the interactional approach enables the discovery of varied discourse functions of a type of linguistic items, which may not be readily available in dictionaries or grammar reference guides.

Available under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/kl.00013.pyu
2022-03-28
2022-05-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/kl.00013.pyu.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/kl.00013.pyu&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Angles, Jeffrey, Ayumi Nagatomi, & Mineharu Nakayama
    2000 Japanese responses hai, ee, and un : Yes, no, and beyond. Language and Communication20: 55–86. 10.1016/S0271‑5309(99)00018‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(99)00018-X [Google Scholar]
  2. Beach, Wayne A.
    1993 Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “okay” usage. Journal of Pragmatics19: 325–352. 10.1016/0378‑2166(93)90092‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90092-4 [Google Scholar]
  3. 1995a Conversation analysis: “okay” as a clue for understanding consequentiality. InThe Consequentiality of Communication, ed.Stuart Sigman, 121–161. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 121–161.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 1995b Preserving and constraining options: “okays” and ‘official’ priorities in medical interviews. InThe talk of the clinic: Explorations in the analysis of medical and therapeutic discourse, ed.George H. Morris and Ronald J. Cheneil, 259–289. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Cho, Young-mee, Hyo Sang Lee, Carol Schulz, Ho-min Sohn & Sung-Ock Sohn
    2009Integrated Korean: Beginning 1. 2nd ed.Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 2012Integrated Korean: Intermediate 1. 2nd ed.Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Drummond, Kent & Robert Hopper
    1993 Back channels revisited: Acknowledgement tokens and speakership incipiency. Research on Language and Social Interaction26 (2): 157–177. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2602_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2602_3 [Google Scholar]
  8. Ford, Cecilia & Johannes Wagner
    1996 Interaction-based studies of language: Introduction. Pragmatics6 (3): 277–279. 10.1075/prag.6.3.01for
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.3.01for [Google Scholar]
  9. Gardner, Rod
    2001When listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.92
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.92 [Google Scholar]
  10. Givon, Talmy
    1979 From discourse to syntax: grammar as a processing strategy. InSyntax and semantics. Vol. 12: Discourse and syntax, ed.Talmy Givon, 81–112. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368897_005
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368897_005 [Google Scholar]
  11. Hayashi, Makato & Kyung-Eun Yoon
    2006 A cross-linguistic exploration of demonstratives in interaction: with particular reference to the context of word-formation trouble. Studies in Language30 (3): 485–540. 10.1075/sl.30.3.02hay
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.30.3.02hay [Google Scholar]
  12. Heritage, John
    1984 A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. InStructures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, ed.J. Maxwell Atkinson and John C. Heritage, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hopper, Paul J.
    1979 Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. InSyntax and semantics. Vol. 12: Discourse and syntax, ed.Talmy Givon, 213–241. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 1988 Emergent grammar and the a priori grammar postulate. InLinguistics in Contact, ed.Deborah Tannen, 117–134. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson
    1980 Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language56 (2): 251–299. 10.1353/lan.1980.0017
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1980.0017 [Google Scholar]
  16. 1984 The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language60 (4): 703–751. 10.1353/lan.1984.0020
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1984.0020 [Google Scholar]
  17. Jefferson, Gail
    1984 Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowlegement tokens yeah and mm hm. Papers in Linguistics17: 197–206. 10.1080/08351818409389201
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351818409389201 [Google Scholar]
  18. Kim, Kyu-hyun
    1993 Other-initiated repair sequences in Korean conversation as interactional resources. InJapanese/Korean Linguistics 3, ed.Soonja Choi, 3–18. Stanford: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 1999 Phrasal unit boundaries and organization of turns and sequences in Korean conversation. Human Studies22: 425–446. 10.1023/A:1005431826151
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005431826151 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kim, Kyu-Hyun & Kyung-Hee Suh
    1998 Confirmation sequences as interactional resources in Korean language proficiency interviews. InTalking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency, ed.Richard Young and Agnes W. He, 297–332. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sibil.14.17kim
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.14.17kim [Google Scholar]
  21. Kitagawa, Chisato
    1980 Saying ‘yes’ in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics4: 105–120. 10.1016/0378‑2166(80)90048‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(80)90048-X [Google Scholar]
  22. Labov, William
    1972Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1983Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  24. Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson
    ed. 1996Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874 [Google Scholar]
  25. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. InStructures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, ed.J. Maxwell Atkinson and John C. Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Gail Jefferson
    1974 A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Language50: 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  27. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1982 Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. InAnalyzing Discourse: Text and Talk, ed.Deborah Tannen, 71–93. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 2000 When ‘others’ initiate repair. Applied Linguistics21 (2): 205–243. 10.1093/applin/21.2.205
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.2.205 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2007Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis, Volume1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  30. Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Harvey Sacks
    1973 Opening up closings. Semiotica7: 289–327. 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 [Google Scholar]
  31. Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson & Harvey Sacks
    1977 The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language53 : 361–382. 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
  32. Selting, Margaret & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    2001Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10 [Google Scholar]
  33. Sohn, H.-M.
    1999The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
    1996 On repeats and responses in Finnish conversations. InInteraction and grammar, ed.Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra Thompson, 277–327. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.006 [Google Scholar]
  35. Stivers, Tanya
    2004 No no no and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. Human Communication Research30 (2): 260–293. 10.1111/j.1468‑2958.2004.tb00733.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00733.x [Google Scholar]
  36. Thompson, Sandra A. & Elizabethe Couper-Kuhlen
    2005 The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies7 (4–5): 481–505. 10.1177/1461445605054403
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054403 [Google Scholar]
  37. Wouk, Fay
    2001 Solidarity in Indonesian conversation: The discourse marker ya. Journal of Pragmatics33 (2): 171–191. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00139‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00139-3 [Google Scholar]
  38. Yoon, Kyung-Eun
    2010 Questions and responses in Korean conversation. Journal of Pragmatics42: 2782–2798. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.012 [Google Scholar]
  39. Zimmerman, Don H.
    1993 Acknowledgement tokens and speakership incipiency revisited. Research on Language and Social Interaction26 (2): 179–194. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2602_4
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2602_4 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/kl.00013.pyu
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/kl.00013.pyu
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): discourse functions; discourse marker; interactional approach; Korean; Korean yes
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error