1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics
  4. Volume 32, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 32, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Providing a corpus-based analysis of the contrastive connective - in Korean, this study demonstrates that global connections are as frequent as local connections as opposed to previous literature. In representing various senses possible with a - connection, this study adopts a fuzzy representation, where meanings range from conceptual to discoursal. The identified meanings include explicit contrast, denial of expectation, speech act hedges and idiomatic expressions. The fuzzy representation is supported for at least two reasons. First, categorization of some cases is often blurred. Second, it can better capture the relatedness of various meanings whose enduring sense concerns ‘contrast’. It is further revealed that interpretations of phrases are compositionally made with co-occurring linguistic units. The “pragmatic” meanings of constructions are explained in terms of different levels of representations in which the contrast occurs. We further investigate the possibility of as a stance/discourse marker with accompanying expressions.

© International Pragmatics Association
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.20042.lee
2021-08-24
2022-08-14

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/prag.20042.lee
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baranzini, Laura, and Alda Mari
    2019 “From Epistemic Modality to Concessivity: Alternatives and Pragmatic Reasoning per absurdum”. Journal of Pragmatics142: 116–138. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bell, D. M.
    1998 “Cancellative Markers: A Core/Periphery Approach.” Pragmatics8: 515–541. 10.1075/prag.8.4.03bel
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.8.4.03bel [Google Scholar]
  3. Blakemore, Diane
    1987 Semantic Constrains in Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. 1989 “Denial and Contrast: A Relevance Theoretic Analysis of But.” Linguistics and Philosophy12: 15–38. 10.1007/BF00627397
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627397 [Google Scholar]
  5. Brown, Penelope, and Stephan Levinson
    1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  6. Carter, Ronald, and Michael McCarthy
    2006 Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Choi, Hyenpay
    1937 Wulimalpon. [Korean Grammar]. Seoul: Top Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Dascal, Marcelo, and Katriel Tamar
    1977 “Between Semantics and Pragmatics: The Two Types of ‘but’ – Hebrew ‘aval’ and ‘ela’.” Theoretical Linguistics4: 143–172. 10.1515/thli.1977.4.1‑3.143
     https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.1977.4.1-3.143 [Google Scholar]
  9. Fraser, Bruce
    1990 “An Approach to Discourse Markers.” Journal of Pragmatics14: 383–395. 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90096‑V
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90096-V [Google Scholar]
  10. 1998 “Contrastive Discourse Markers in English.” InDiscourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory, eds. byA. H. Jucker, and Y. Ziv, 301–326. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.57.15fra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.57.15fra [Google Scholar]
  11. Gray, Bethany, and Douglas Biber
    2014 “Stance Markers.” InCorpus Pragmatics, eds. byKarin Aijmer, and Christoph Rühlemann, 219–248. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Grice, Paul
    1989 Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Halliday, M. A., and R. Hasan
    1976 Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. He, Wung
    1977 Wuliyeysmalpon [Grammar of Old Korean]. Seoul: Saymmwunhwasa.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Helmer, Henrike, Silke Reineke, and Arnulf Deppermann
    2016 “A Range of Uses of Negative Epistemic Constructions in German: ICH WEIß NICHT as a Resource for Dispreferred Actions.” Journal of Pragmatics106: 97–114. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  16. Jaszczolt, Kasia
    2005 Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199261987.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199261987.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2009 Representing Time: An Essay on Temporality and Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 2016 Meaning in Linguistic Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602469.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602469.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Lakoff, Robin
    1971 “If’s, and’s and but’s about Conjunction.” InStudies in Linguistic Semantics, eds. byC. Filmore, and D. Langenden, 114–149. New York: Holt, Reinhard and Winston. 114–149.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Lee, Huyca, and Conghuy Lee
    1999 Theyksuthu Pwunsekcek Kwuke Emiuy Yenkwu [A Text-Analytic Approach to Korean Endings]. Seoul: Hankwukmwunhwasa
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Lee, Hye-Kyung
    2002 “Towards a New Typology of Connectives with Special Reference to Conjunction in English and Korean.” Journal of Pragmatics34: 851–866. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00065‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00065-0 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2015 “A Corpus-Pragmatic Analysis of Wuli.” Discourse and Cognition22(3): 59–78. 10.15718/discog.2015.22.3.59
     https://doi.org/10.15718/discog.2015.22.3.59 [Google Scholar]
  23. Lee, Hyo Sang
    1991 Tense, Aspect and Modality: A Discourse-Pragmatic Analysis of Verbal Suffix in Korean from a Typological Perspective. Ph.D. Dissertation, UCLA.
  24. Lee, Iksep, and Hongpin Im
    1983 Kwukemwunpeplon. [Korean Grammar]. Seoul: Tayhaksa.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Lee, Keedong
    1993 “The Pragmatic Function of the Connective Nuntey.” Ene [Korean Journal of Linguistics] 5(1): 119–135.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Lee, Keum-Hee
    2018 Pocosa manun kyelhaphyeng yenkyel phyohyeney tayhaye: -cimanun, -tamanun, -(u)kkamanun lyu cwungsimulo. [Final endings + particle Maneun on coupled forms focused mainly -jimaneun, -damaneun, -eulkkmaneun]. Kwukehak [Journal of Korean Linguistics] 86: 63–88.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Lee, Unkyeng
    2000 Kwukeuy Cepsokemi Yenkwu [A Study of Korean Conjunctive Suffixes]. Seoul: Thayhaksa.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Lyons, John
    1977 Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Mosegaard Hansen, Maj-Britt
    1998 The Function of Discourse Particles: A Study with Special Reference to Spoken Standard French. Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.53
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.53 [Google Scholar]
  30. Nam, Kisim, and Yengkun Ko
    1983 Phyocwunkwukemwunpeplon. [Grammar of the Standard Korean]. Seoul: Top Publishing
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Park, Jae-Yeon
    2014 “Hankwuke Yenkyelemi Uymi Hwakcangeyseuy Hwanyuwa Unyu [Metonymy and Metaphor in the Semantic Extensions of Korean Connective Endings].” Kwukehak [Journal of Korea Linguistics] 70: 117–155.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Park, Yong-Yae
    1999 “The Korean Connective Nuntey in Conversational Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics31:191–218. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00060‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00060-5 [Google Scholar]
  33. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1987 Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  34. Schourup, Lawrence
    1985 Common Discourse Particles in English Conversation. New York: Garland.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Sohn, Ho-Min
    1999 The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. 2013 Korean. Seoul: Korea University Press
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
    1986/1995 Relevance: Communication and Cognition (Second edition with postface). Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Sweetser, Eve
    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]
  39. Weatherall, Ann
    2011 “I Don’t Know as a Prepositioned Epistemic Hedge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction44(4): 317–337. 10.1080/08351813.2011.619310
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2011.619310 [Google Scholar]
  40. Yoon, Phyenghyen
    1989 Kwukeuy Cepsokemiey Tayhan Yenkwu. [A study of Korean Conjunctive Suffixes]. Ph.D. Dissertation. Cheonnam National University. Korea.
  41. Zafiu, Rodica
    2018 Epistemic and Evidential Markers in the Rhetorical Context of Concession. Journal of Pragmatics128: 116–127. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.07.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.07.008 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.20042.lee
Loading
A corpus-based study on contrast and concessivity of the connective ‑ciman in Korean
Pragmatics 32, 218 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.20042.lee
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.20042.lee
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.20042.lee
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): -ciman; concessivity; contrast; fuzzy representation; Korean; stance marker

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