Volume 21, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1606-822X
  • E-ISSN: 2309-5067



This paper takes a corpus-driven approach to the Korean first person possessive pronoun with reference to its plural counterpart . The examination of the frequent noun collocates of the two pronouns in Sejong Corpus reveals the close connection between and inalienable entities as well as persons lower than the speaker. Meanwhile, is strongly coupled with places or organizations alongside persons higher than the speaker. Pragmatic principles account for the difference between the kinship term collocates of the two pronouns, such as Horn’s (19841989) R-principle or Levinson’s (2000) M-principle. The non-prototypical singular use of triggers a pragmatic effect of expressing, for example, affection. The frequent collocation of with foreign/loan nouns is a reflection of the tendency that people more interested in social mobility (younger generation and women) are more ready to employ rather than the singular and to accept foreign/loan words. The meaning of emerging from its interaction with noun collocates is that it is closely connected with being inalienable, private, or unshared. Meanwhile, the singular meaning of is pragmatically derived, which is construed as being grouped, deferent, or general.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2012 Possession and ownership: A cross-linguistic perspective. InAikhenvald, Alexandra & Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.), Possession and ownership: A cross-linguistic typology, 1–64. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199660223.003.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199660223.003.0001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Chambers, J. K.
    1992 Linguistic correlates of gender and sex. English World-Wide13(2). 173–218. 10.1075/eww.13.2.02cha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.13.2.02cha [Google Scholar]
  3. Choi, Hyun-Bae
    1961Wulimalpon [Grammar of our language]. Seoul: Cengummwunhwasa.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Choi, In Ji
    2012 Ilinching pokswu taymyengsauy celchacek uymiwa kwanleynseng [The procedural meaning of first person plural pronouns and relevance]. Enehak [The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal] 20(2). 171–197.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Christofaki, Rodanthi
    2018 Expressing the self in Japanese: Indexical expressions in the service of indexical thoughts. InHuang, Minyao & Jaszczolt, Kasia M. (eds.), Expressing the self: Cultural diversity and cognitive universals, 72–87. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198786658.003.0005
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198786658.003.0005 [Google Scholar]
  6. Dixon, R. M. W.
    2010Basic linguistic theory volume 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Durieux, Frank
    1990The meanings of the specifying genitive in English: A cognitive analysis (Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 66). Antwerp: Department of Linguistics, University of Antwerp.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Grice, H. Paul
    1989Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Heine, Bernd
    2006Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Helmbrecht, Johannes
    2015 A typology of non-prototypical uses of personal pronouns: Synchrony and diachrony. Journal of Pragmatics881. 176–189. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  11. Holmes, Janet
    1992An introduction to sociolinguistics. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Horn, Lawrence
    1984 Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. InSchiffrin, Deborah (ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications (Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1984), 11–42. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 1989A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Jaszczolt, Kasia M.
    2013 First-person reference in discourse: Aims and strategies. Journal of Pragmatics48(1). 57–70. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.018
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.018 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2016Meaning in linguistic interaction: Semantics, metasemantics, philosophy of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602469.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602469.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Kempson, Ruth
    1977Semantic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Kim, Cheon-Hak
    2012 Soyu kwankyeywa soyu kwuseng [Possessive relations and possessive constructions]. Hankwuke uymihak [Korean Semantics] 391. 125–148.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kim, Jung-Nam
    2003 Hankwuke taymyengsa wuli uy uymiwa yongpep [The meaning and usage of the Korean pronoun wuli]. Hankwuke uymihak [Korean Semantics] 131. 257–274.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kim, Myung-Hee
    1987 {Uy}uy uymi kinung. [The semantic function of {uy}]. Ene [Korean Journal of Linguistics] 12(2). 248–260.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark
    1980Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Lee, Han-Gyu
    2007 Hankwuke taymyengsa wuli [A pragmatic and sociocultural approach to the so-called 1st person pronoun wuli in Korean]. Tamhwawa inci [Discourse and Cognition] 14(3). 155–178.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Lee, Hong-Sik
    2007Oylaye/oykwuke sayong mich swunhwae swuyong silthay cosa [A study on the use of foreign/ loan words and the acceptance of refined words]. Seoul: National Institute of the Korean Language. (Project report 11-1370252-000097-01.)
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Lee, Hye-Kyung
    2015 The corpus-pragmatic analysis of wuli. Tamhwawa inci [Discourse and Cognition] 22(3). 59–78.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2018 Self-referring in Korean with reference to Korean first-person markers. InHuang, Minyao & Jaszczolt, Kasia M. (eds.), Expressing the self: Cultural diversity and cognitive universals, 58–71. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Lee, Iksop & Ramsey, Robert
    2001The Korean language. New York: State University of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Levinson, Stephan
    2000Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Miller, George & Johnson-Laird, Philip
    1976Language and perception. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 10.4159/harvard.9780674421288
    https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674421288 [Google Scholar]
  28. Mok, Jung-Su
    2007 Hankwuke cosa {uy}uy mwunpepcek ciwiwa uymi kinungey tayhaye [On the grammatical status and the semantic function of the Korean particle {uy}]. Kwukekyoyuk [The Education of Korean Language] 1231. 437–470.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Nikiforidou, Kiki
    1991 The meanings of the genitive: A case study in semantic structure and semantic change. Cognitive Linguistics2(2). 149–205. 10.1515/cogl.1991.2.2.149
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1991.2.2.149 [Google Scholar]
  30. Poutsma, Hendrik
    1916A grammar of late modern English: For the use of continental, especially Dutch, students. Part 2: The parts of speech. Groningen: P. Nordhoff.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Quirk, Randolph & Greenbaum, Sidney & Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan
    1985A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Shin, Ki-Hyun
    2000 Grammaticalisation of social relationship. (Paper presented at2000 Summer Conference of the Society of Modern Grammar, Daegu, 27 May 2000.)
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Siewierska, Anna
    2004Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511812729
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812729 [Google Scholar]
  34. Sinclair, Melinda & Winckler, Walter
    1991 Relevance theory: Explaining verbal communication. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus181. 1–97.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Sohn, Ho-Min
    1999The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 2013Korean. Seoul: Korea University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre
    1986Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Tanaka, Hiroaki
    2012 Scalar implicature in Japanese: Contrastive wa and intersubjectivity. (Paper presented at the1st International Conference of the American Pragmatics Association (AMPRA), Charlotte, 19–21 October 2012.)
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Tayler, John R.
    1989Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 1996Possessives in English: An exploration in cognitive grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Van der Vegt, Wouter
    2014 Attitudes towards English loanwords in Dutch news broadcasts: The influence of gender and age. Leiden: Leiden University. (Master’s thesis.)
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Yoon, Jae-Hak
    2003 Tanswucek yongpepuy wuli [Singular wuli we]. Enewa cengpo [Language and Information] 7(2). 1–30.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 2009 Soyuuy uymiyuheng: Hanyeng soyukwumwun uymichai. [Types of possessive meanings: Semantic differences between Korean and English possessives]. Enewa cengpo [Language and Information] 13(1). 93–125.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): corpus-based approach; first person pronouns; nay; non-prototypical; possessives
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