1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Korean Linguistics
  4. Volume 21, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 21, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0257-3784
  • E-ISSN: 2212-9731
PDF
EPUB

Abstract

Abstract

This article proposes a Cognitive Grammar account of Korean conventional indirect requests and connective behavior. Sentence-ending particles (SEPs) are analyzed as grounding morphology that links clausal content to the speaker–addressee Ground. Clause type provides a default access path to a speech-act scenario, which may be overridden when an SEP profiles a subpart such as desire, ability, obligation, or intention. Mapping , and phases to Korean morphosyntax predicts the distribution of declaratives, interrogatives, and intention forms. It also accounts for the agent shift of in service talk and the preference for grammaticalized endings over periphrastic expressions. We extend the analysis to Sweetser’s domain shifts to show how , , , and alternate across content, epistemic, and speech-act uses under clause-final anchoring. Integrating Panther & Thornburg’s scenario-based metonymy with CG grounding, the study links grammaticalized endings to speaker–hearer interaction in the usage event.

© 2025 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/kl.25005.par
2026-01-29
2026-02-14

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/kl.25005.par
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/kl.25005.par.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/kl.25005.par&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Ahn, Mikyung & Foong Ha Yap
    (2022) On the evolution of a multifunctional discourse marker: A Discourse Grammar analysis of Korean.comJournal of Pragmatics1951: 31–47. 10.1016/j.pragma.2022.04.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.04.010 [Google Scholar]
  2. (2023) On the face-threat-attenuating functions of Korean.comText & Talk43(5): 671–695. 10.1515/text‑2020‑0217
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2020-0217 [Google Scholar]
  3. An, Duk-ho
    (2022) Clause types, intonation and stranded embedded clauses. Journal of Linguistics60(1), 51–74. 10.1017/S0022226722000470
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226722000470 [Google Scholar]
  4. An, Duk-Ho
    (2024) A comparative syntax of the formal politeness markers in Japanese and Korean: –Mas/–Des and –(Su)pni. The Linguistic Review41(4): 637–660. 10.1515/tlr‑2024–2018
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2024–2018 [Google Scholar]
  5. Austin, John Langshaw.
    (1962) How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Barcelona, Antonio
    (2022a) Metonymy as a basic cognitive operation: Revisited and updated. Review of Cognitive Linguistics20(2): 215–246.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. (2022b) Metonymy: Hidden Shortcuts in Mind, Language, and Communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown, Lucien, Grace Eunhae Oh & Kaori Idemaru
    (2024) “Prosodic features of polite speech: Evidence from Korean interactional data.” Pragmatics35(3): 321–347. 10.1075/prag.23003.bro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.23003.bro [Google Scholar]
  9. Gutzmann, Daniel
    (2015) Use-Conditional Meaning: Studies in Multidimensional Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723820.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723820.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  10. Haegeman, Liliane & Virginia Hill
    (2013) The syntactization of discourse. Syntax and its Limits, 370–390. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199683239.003.0018
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199683239.003.0018 [Google Scholar]
  11. Hill, Virginia
    (2014) Vocatives: How Syntax Meets with Pragmatics. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004261389
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004261389 [Google Scholar]
  12. (2007) Vocatives and the pragmatics–syntax interface. Lingua117(12): 2077–2105. 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.01.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  13. Horn, Laurence R. & Gregory Ward
    (eds.) (2004) The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Ituarte, Aritz
    (2024) Clause type vs. speech act: Knowledge confirmation questions in Basque. Journal of Linguistics60(1): 1–35. 10.1017/S0022226722000469
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226722000469 [Google Scholar]
  15. Jeong, Sunwoo
    (2018) Intonation and sentence-type conventions: Two types of rising declaratives. Journal of Semantics35(2): 305–356. 10.1093/semant/ffy001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/semant/ffy001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Jou, Eunsun
    (2024) Honorification as Agree in Korean and beyond. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics9(1), 1–48. 10.16995/glossa.9565
     https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.9565 [Google Scholar]
  17. Kaufmann, Magdalena
    (2020) Imperatives. The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics, eds.D. Gutzmann , 1–26. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 10.1002/9781118788516.sem067
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118788516.sem067 [Google Scholar]
  18. Krifka, Manfred
    (2023) The Grammar of Speech Acts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198871200.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198871200.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kwon, Insung
    (2025) Mental Spaces Theory and multilayered meaning construction. WIREs Cognitive Science16(2): e70002. 10.1002/wcs.70002
     https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.70002 [Google Scholar]
  20. Langacker, Ronald W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. (1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. (2001) Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics121: 143–188. 10.1515/cogl.12.2.143
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.2.143 [Google Scholar]
  23. (2008) Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Lee, Minho
    (2017) Korean subject honorifics: An experimental study. Journal of Pragmatics1151: 26–45. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.06.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  25. Miyagawa, Shigeru
    (2022) Syntax in the Treetops. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN9780262046678. (Acknowledged, not pursued.) 10.7551/mitpress/14421.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/14421.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2023) Commitment Phrase: Linking proposition to illocutionary force. Linguistic Inquiry56(3): 589–604. 10.1162/ling_a_00503
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00503 [Google Scholar]
  27. National Institute of the Korean Language
    National Institute of the Korean Language (2021–2022) Korean Parallel Corpus. Seoul: National Institute of the Korean Language. Available at: https://corpus.korean.go.kr.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Pak, Miok, Paul Portner & Raffaella Zanuttini
    (2022) Dimensions of honorific meaning in Korean speech style particles. Glossa7(1): 1–27. 10.5334/gjgl
     https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl [Google Scholar]
  29. Panther, Klaus-Uwe
    (2022) Metonymy and the grammar–pragmatics interface. Review of Cognitive Linguistics20(2): 235–260.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg
    (1998) A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics30(6): 755–769. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00028‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00028-9 [Google Scholar]
  31. (2003) Metonymies as natural inference and activation schemas. Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing, eds.K. -U. Panther & L. L. Thornburg, 127–147. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.113.10pan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113.10pan [Google Scholar]
  32. (2004) The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. metaphorik.de61: 91–113.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Park, Jaeyeon
    (2013) The metonymic extension of Korean endings including modal meaning ‘intention’. Kwukehak681: 253–288.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. (2014) Metonymy and metaphor in the semantic extension of Korean connective endings. Kwukehak701: 115–151.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. (2015) The metonymic link between modality and conventional indirect speech acts: Focusing on request speech acts. Kwukehak731: 83–103. 10.15811/jkl.2015..73.003
     https://doi.org/10.15811/jkl.2015..73.003 [Google Scholar]
  36. Rhee, Seongha
    (2017) Audience-blind sentence enders in Korean: A discourse-pragmatic study. Journal of Pragmatics1201: 101–121. 10.1016/J.PRAGMA.2017.09.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PRAGMA.2017.09.002 [Google Scholar]
  37. Roberts, Craige
    (2018) Speech acts in discourse context. New Work on Speech Acts, eds.D. Fogal, D. Harris & M. Moss, 317–352. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J. & Lorena Pérez Hernández
    (2011) The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: Myths, Developments and Challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 26:3, 161–185. 10.1080/10926488.2011.583189
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2011.583189 [Google Scholar]
  39. Sadock, Jerrold M.
    (1974) Toward a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. (2004) Speech acts. InLaurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics, 53–73. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Searle, John R.
    (1975) Indirect speech acts. Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, eds.P. Cole & J. L. Morgan, 59–82. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368811_004
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_004 [Google Scholar]
  42. Speas, Margaret & Carol Tenny
    (2003) Configurational properties of point of view roles. Asymmetry in Grammar, ed.A. M. Di Sciullo, 315–344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.57.15spe
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.57.15spe [Google Scholar]
  43. Sweetser, Eve E.
    (1990) From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  44. Thornburg, Linda & Klaus-Uwe Panther
    (1997) Speech act metonymies. Discourse and Perspectives in Cognitive Linguistics, eds.Wolf-Andreas Liebert, Gisela Redeker & Linda Waugh, 201–219. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.151.14tho
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.151.14tho [Google Scholar]
  45. Wilcox, Sherman, Rocío Martínez, & Sara Siyavoshi
    (2024) Signed Language and Cognitive Grammar. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Wiltschko, Martina
    (2021) The Grammar of Interactional Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108693707
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108693707 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/kl.25005.par
Loading
Clause final grounding and metonymy in Korean indirect requests
Korean Linguistics 21, 135 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/kl.25005.par
/content/journals/10.1075/kl.25005.par
/content/journals/10.1075/kl.25005.par
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cognitive grammar; indirect speech acts; Korean connectives; metonymy; sentence final endings

Most Cited

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