1887
image of Korean imperatives at two different speech levels
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Korean imperatives are differentiated by speech levels or levels of honorification. Accordingly, most research on Korean imperatives examines them from the perspective of politeness and interpersonal relations. This study takes a different approach, focusing on two types of non-honorific imperative turn design: one with the intimate speech level imperative and the other with the plain speech level imperative . Close examination of the forms in naturally occurring conversation provides a clearer picture of when and how the use of these imperatives is warranted by specific interactional configurations and contexts in everyday Korean talk-in-interaction. This study shows that alternate imperatives do not simply index politeness or social status, but are important resources for implementing separate action formats that pursue divergent interactional trajectories.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.20060.kim
2023-01-17
2023-02-06
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2010Imperatives and Commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House, and Gabriele Kasper
    1989Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 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]
  4. Brown, Lucien
    2015 “Honorifics and Politeness.” InThe Handbook of Korean Linguistics, ed. byLucien Brown, and Jaehoon Yoon, –. West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118371008.ch17
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118371008.ch17 [Google Scholar]
  5. Byon, Andrew
    2001 “The Communicative Act of Requests: Interlanguage Features of American KFL Learners.” PhD diss.University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.
  6. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting
    2018Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Sandra A. Thompson
    2022 “Action Ascription and Deonticity in Everyday Advice-Giving Sequences.” InAction Ascription in Social Interaction, ed. byArnulf Deppermann, and Michael Haugh, –. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108673419.010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108673419.010 [Google Scholar]
  8. Deppermann, Arnulf
    2018 “Instruction Practices in German Driving Lessons: Differential Uses of Declaratives and Imperatives.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics (): –. 10.1111/ijal.12198
    https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12198 [Google Scholar]
  9. Drew, Paul, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    2014 “Requesting – From Speech Act to Recruitment Requesting.” InRequesting in Social Interaction, ed. byPaul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.26.01dre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.26.01dre [Google Scholar]
  10. Goodwin, Marjorie Harness, and Asta Cekaite
    2013 “Calibration in Directive/Response Sequences in Family Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics (): –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.008 [Google Scholar]
  11. Han, Kil
    2004Hyondae uri mal ui mach’im ssikkut yon’gu [A study on Korean sentence-enders]. Seoul: Yeklak.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Heinemann, Trine, and Jakob Steensig
    2017 “Three Imperative Action Formats in Danish Talk-in-Interaction.” InSorjonen 2017, –. 10.1075/slsi.30.05hei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.05hei [Google Scholar]
  13. Hickey, Leo, and Miranda Stewart
    2005Politeness in Europe. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853597398
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853597398 [Google Scholar]
  14. Jefferson, Gail, and John Lee
    1981 “The Rejection of Advice: Managing the Problematic Convergence of a ‘Troubles-Telling’ and a ‘Service Encounter’.” Journal of Pragmatics (): –. 10.1016/0378‑2166(81)90026‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(81)90026-6 [Google Scholar]
  15. Kim, Joungsook, Dongho Park, Byungkyu Lee, Hyeyoung Lee, Heejung Jung, Jungsoon Choi, and Yong Huh
    2005Oegugin ul wihan han’gugo munpop 1 [Korean grammar for foreign language learners 1]. Seoul: Communication Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Kim, Mary Shin
    2018 “The Korean Vocative Interjection Ya ‘Hey’ Beyond Its Summoning Action.” InJapanese/Korean Linguistics 25, ed. byShin Fukuda, Mary Shin Kim, and Mee-Jeong Park, –. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2020 “Imperative Requests in Korean Interaction.” InJapanese/Korean Linguistics 26, ed. byShoichi Iwasaki, Susan Strauss, Shin Fukuda, Suh-Ah Jun, Sung-Ock Sohn, and Kie Zuraw, –. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kim, Mary Shin, Stephanie Hyeri Kim, and Sung-Ock Sohn
    2021 “The Korean Discourse Particle Ya Across Multiple Turn Positions: An Interactional Resource for Turn-taking and Stance-taking.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.10.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.10.012 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kim, Stephanie Hyeri, and Mary Shin Kim
    2020 “Requesting Here-and-Now Actions with Two Imperative Formats in Korean Interaction.” InMobilizing Others: Grammar and Lexis within Larger Activities, ed. byCarmen Taleghani-Nikazm, Emma Betz, and Peter Golato, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.33.02kim
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.33.02kim [Google Scholar]
  20. Koo, Dohee
    2001 “Realisations of Two Speech Acts of Heritage Learners of Korean: Requests and Apology Strategies.” PhD diss.Ohio State University.
  21. Kuroshima, Satomi, Stephanie Hyeri Kim, Kaoru Hayano, Mary Shin Kim, and Seung Hee Lee
    2021 “When OKAY Is Repeated: Closing the Talk So Far in Korean and Japanese Conversations.” InOkay Across Languages: Toward a Comparative Approach to Its Use in Talk-in-Interaction, ed. byEmma Betz, Arnulf Deppermann, Lorenza Mondada, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.34.08kur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.34.08kur [Google Scholar]
  22. Lee, Hyo Sang
    1994 “Discourse-Pragmatic Functions of Sentence-type Suffixes in Informal Discourse in Korean.” InTheoretical Issues in Korean Linguistics, ed. byYoung-Key Kim-Renaud, –. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 1999 “A Discourse-Pragmatic Analysis of the Committal -Ci in Korean: A Synthetic Approach to the Form-Meaning Relation.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00066‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00066-6 [Google Scholar]
  24. Mondada, Lorenza
    2017 “Precision Timing and Timed Embeddedness of Imperatives in Embodied Courses of Action: Examples from French.” InImperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. byMarja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.30.03mon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.03mon [Google Scholar]
  25. Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson
    1996Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874 [Google Scholar]
  26. Park, Young Jun
    1994Myongnyongmun ui kugosachok yon’gu [A study on Korean imperative constructions]. Seoul: Kwukhak calyowen.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Rossi, Giovanni
    2012 “Bilateral and Unilateral Requests: The Use of Imperatives and mi X? Interrogatives in Italian.” Discourse Processes: –. 10.1080/0163853X.2012.684136
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2012.684136 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2017 “Secondary and Deviant Uses of the Imperative in Italian.” InImperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. byMarja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.30.04ros
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.04ros [Google Scholar]
  29. Rue, Yong Ju, Grace Zhang, and Kyu Shin
    2007 “Request Strategies in Korean.” InProceedings of the Fifth Biennial Korean Studies Association of Australasia Conference, ed. byKorean Studies Association of Australasia, Kyu Suk Shin, and Hyun Chang, –. Perth: Curtin University of Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language: –. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  31. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    2007Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  32. Sohn, Ho-Min
    1994Korean. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 1999The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
    2017 “Imperatives and Responsiveness in Finnish Conversation.” InImperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. byMarja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.30.08sor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.08sor [Google Scholar]
  35. Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    eds. 2017Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.30
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30 [Google Scholar]
  36. Stivers, Tanya
    2011 “Morality and Question Design: ‘Of Course’ as Contesting a Presupposition of Askability.” InThe Morality of Knowing in Conversation, eds. byTanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jacob Steensig, –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.005 [Google Scholar]
  37. Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen, Emma Betz, and Peter Golato
    eds. 2020Mobilizing Others: Grammar and Lexis within Larger Activities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.33
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.33 [Google Scholar]
  38. Thompson, Sandra A., and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    2020 “English Why Don’t You X as a Formulaic Expression.” InFixed Expressions: Building Language Structure and Action, ed. byTsuyoshi Ono, and Ritva Laury, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.315.05tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.315.05tho [Google Scholar]
  39. Wootton, Anthony
    1997Interaction and the Development of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511519895
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519895 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.20060.kim
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.20060.kim
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: imperative ; stance ; politeness ; (dis)alignment ; speech level ; social interaction ; (dis)affiliation ; Korean
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