Volume 30, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238



This paper revisits the hortative - construction in Korean from a usage-based perspective, examining its functions in natural interactional spoken data The examination of the actual occurrence of reveals its various functions: indicates that the performer of the focal-event encoded in the utterance may be 1st person plural subject, i.e., the speaker and other interlocutors; 2nd person, i.e., the addressee(s); 1st person, i.e., the speaker; and 3rd person. Our findings provide direct evidence for the different degrees of prototypicality among these functions, which are reflected in their different frequency counts. Furthermore, this study proposes two novel functions of , the accordant imperative (to demand that the addressee agree with the speaker that the addressee perform the focal-event) and the speaker hortative (to ask the addressee to perform an action so that the speaker him-/herself can perform the focal-event).


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Ahn, Mikyung
    2016 “Emotion in Interaction: A Diachronic and Pragmatic Analysis of the Sentence-Final Particle -Tani in Korean.” Studies in Language40(4): 872–893. 10.1075/sl.40.4.04ahn
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.40.4.04ahn [Google Scholar]
  2. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2016 “Sentence Types.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood, ed. byIan Nuyts and Johan van der Auwera, 141–165. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Ammann, Andreas, and Johan van der Auwera
    2001 “Complementizer-Headed Main Clauses for Volitional Moods in the Languages of South-Eastern Europe: A Balkanism?” InLinguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 67, ed. byOlga Mišeka Tomić, 341–362. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  5. Clark, Herbert H.
    1996Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  6. Doh, Jae Hak
    2016 “On the Strategies and Grammatical Categories that Denote a Concept of ‘Wish’ in Korean.” Emwunnoncip78: 361–390.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Du Bois, John W., Schuetze-Coburn, Stephan, Cumming, Susanna, and Paolino Dane
    1993 “Outline of Discourse Transcription.” InTalking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research, ed. byJane A. Edwards and Martin D. Lampert, 45–89. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Jeon, Byung-yong
    1999Cwungseykwukeuy Emi -Niey Tayhan Yenkwu [A Study on the Ending -Ni in Middle Korean]. Seoul: Cheongtongkewul.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Kim, Young-cheol
    2008 “A Study on the Discourse Function of ‘JA’ to Discourse Marker in Korean language.” Kwukemwunhak45: 5–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Koo, Hyun Jung and Seongha Rhee
    2008 “Manipulated Hypotheticality in Conditionals: A Journey in Search of Strength and Diversity.” Paper presented at the4th New Reflections on Grammaticalization Conference, Catholic University of Leuven, July 16–19, 2008.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Lim, Dong-Hoon
    2011 “Sentence Types and Uses in Korean.” Journal of Korea Linguistics60: 323–359.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Mauri, Caterina, and Andrea Sansò
    2011 “How Directive Constructions Emerge: Grammaticalization, Constructionalization, Cooptation.” Journal of Pragmatics43: 3489–3521. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.08.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  13. Na, Eun-mee
    2002 “The Function of the Korean Utterance-Final Marker ‘-Psita’ with Focus on its Directive Function.” Icwungenehak20: 93–110.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Palmer, F. R.
    2001Mood and Modality (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139167178
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167178 [Google Scholar]
  15. Park, Sook-young
    2012 “Studies on Behaviors Accompanied by Hortative Utterances: A Case Study of ‘-(U)psita, -Ca’.” Paper presented at the16th Fall Korean Language Culture Education Conference. Yonsei University, Seoul, October 20.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Rhee, Seongha
    2016 “From Quoting to Reporting to Stance-Marking: Rhetorical Strategies and Intersubjectification of Reportative.” Language Sciences55: 36–54. 10.1016/j.langsci.2016.02.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2016.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2017 “What Happens When the Will Withers: The Case of Hortative in Korean.” Lingua189–190: 51.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. . (To appear). “Pseudo-Hortative and the Development of the Discourse Marker Eti Poca ‘Well, Let’s See’ in Korean.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics21(1) (2020).
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Sohn, Ho-Min
    1999The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Traugott, Elizabeth C., and Richard B. Dasher
    2002Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Van der Auwera, Johan, Nina Dobrushina, and Valentin Goussev
    . In press. “A Semantic Map for Imperative-Hortatives.” InPoints of Comparison in Linguistics: from Morphology to Discourse ed. by Dominique Willems, Timothy Colleman and Bart Defrancq, 1–20. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 2003 “Imperative-Hortative systems.” InWorld Atlas of Language Structures, ed. byMatthew Dryer, Martin Haspelmath, David Gil, and Bernard Comrie, 294–297. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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