1887
Volume 40, Issue 4
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

The present paper investigates how the Korean sentence-final particle is used to mark mirativity. More interestingly, this paper discusses how Korean speakers or writers employ this mirative marker (i) to often express their negative emotions and satisfy their face needs and (ii) to elicit the reader’s engagement, using data from the Contemporary Spoken and Written Corpus. This paper also examines the development of : The non-subjective complementations, in this case involving constructions with the quotative , come to be reinterpreted as subjective constructions with sentence-final , syntactically and pragmatically reanalyzed as a mirative marker. In addition, the findings from this study have broader theoretical and cross-linguistic implications for the existence of mirativity as distinct from evidentiality and the interaction of mirativity with the expression of emotional attitudes (see DeLancey 2001, 2012).

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.40.4.04ahn
2017-01-30
2019-12-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ahn, Mikyung
    2016 Surprise in discourse: The mirative meanings of –ta(ha)-derived sentence final particles in Korean. Language and Linguistics71: 95–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahn, Mikyung & Foong Ha Yap
    2014 On the development of Korean ‘say’ evidentials and their extended pragmatic functions. Diachronica31(3): 299–336. doi: 10.1075/dia.31.3.01ahn
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.31.3.01ahn [Google Scholar]
  3. 2015 Evidentiality in interaction. A pragmatic analysis of Korean hearsay evidential markers. Studies in Language39(1): 46–84. doi: 10.1075/sl.39.1.03ahn
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.39.1.03ahn [Google Scholar]
  4. Ahn, Joo Hoh
    2003 A Study on Quotation Sentence & Grammaticalization of Quotation Markers in Korean. Discourse and Cognition10(1): 145–165.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & Robert M.W. Dixon
    2003Studies in evidentiality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.54
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.54 [Google Scholar]
  6. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y
    2004Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Aikhenvald, Alexander Y. & Randy J. LaPolla
    2007 New perspectives on evidentials: a view from Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area30(2): 1–12.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y
    2012 The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology16: 435–485. doi: 10.1515/lity‑2012‑0017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0017 [Google Scholar]
  9. Aksu, Ayhan & Dan Slobin
    1986 A psychological account of the development and use of evidentials in Turkish. In Wallace L. Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 159–167. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Anderson, Lloyd B
    1986 Evidentials, paths of change and mental maps: Typologically regular asymmetries. In Wallace L. Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 273–312. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Aune, Krystyna Strzyzewski , R. Kelly Aune & David B. Buller
    1994 The experience, expression, and perceived appropriateness of emotions across levels of relationship development. Journal of Social Psychology134: 141–150. doi: 10.1080/00224545.1994.9711377
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1994.9711377 [Google Scholar]
  12. Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Chafe, Wallace L. & Johanna Nichols
    (eds.) 1986Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. New Jersey: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Choi, Hyun-Bae
    1937Urimalbon [Korean Grammar]. Seoul: Jungeumsa.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Chung, Kyung-Sook
    2012aSpace in Tense: The Interaction of Tense, Aspect, Evidentiality and Speech Acts in Korean, Vol. 189. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.189
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.189 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2012b The Semantics of the Korean Sentence-Final Suffix -ney: in Relation to Evidentiality and Mirativity. Korean Journal of Linguistics37(4): 995–1016. doi: 10.18855/lisoko.2012.37.4.010
    https://doi.org/10.18855/lisoko.2012.37.4.010 [Google Scholar]
  17. DeLancey, Scott
    1997 Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology1: 33–52. doi: 10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2001 The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics33(2): 369–382. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)80001‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80001-1 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2012 Still mirative after all these years. Linguistic Typology16(3): 529–564.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Ekman, Paul & Wallace V. Friesen
    1975Unmasking the face. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Ekman, Paul
    1980 Asymmetry in facial expression. Science209: 833–834. doi: 10.1126/science.7403851
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7403851 [Google Scholar]
  22. 1984 Expression and the nature of emotion. In K. Scherer & P. Ekman (eds.), Approaches to Emotion, 319–344. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Evans, Nicholas
    2007 Insubordination and its uses. In Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations, 366–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Faller, M
    2003 Propositional- and illocutionary-level evidentiality in Cuzco Quechua. In J. Anderssen , P. Menéndez-Benito , & A. Werle (eds.), Proceedings of SULA 2, 19–33. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Gipper, Sonja
    2011Evidentiality and intersubjectivity in Yurakará: An interactional account. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institut für Psycholinguistik.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Givon, Talmy
    1982 Evidentiality and epistemic space. Studies in Language6: 23–49. doi: 10.1075/sl.6.1.03giv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.6.1.03giv [Google Scholar]
  27. Goffman, Erving
    1967Interaction Ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Doubleday Anchor.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hein, Veronika
    2007 The mirative and its interplay with evidentiality in the Tibetan dialect of Tabo (Spiti). Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area30(2): 195–214.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Heine, Bernd
    2002 On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New Reflections on Grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language), 83–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.49.08hei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.08hei [Google Scholar]
  30. Hengeveld, Kees & Hella Olbertz
    2012 Didn’t you know?Mirativity does exist! Linguistic Typology16(3): 487–503.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott
    2003Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  32. Jang, Yo-han
    2013 The study on Historical Change of Conjoined Endings ‘keoniwa’ and ‘-dani’. The Korean Language and Literature3: 1–26. doi: 10.18704/kjjll.2013.03.56.1
    https://doi.org/10.18704/kjjll.2013.03.56.1 [Google Scholar]
  33. Jeon, Byung-yong
    1999Cwungseykwuke-uy Emi -ni-ey Tayhan Yenkwu [A Study on the ending -ni in Middle Korean]. Seoul: Cheongtongkewul Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Johanson, Lars & Bo Utas
    2000Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110805284
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110805284 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kim, Hee Kyong
    2011 A study on the structural features of Indirect Quotation of Korean. Korean Linguistics52. 51–82.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Ko, Kyounghee
    1989The integrated/new knowledge markers in Korean. Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon M.A. thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Kwon, Iksoo
    2013 The Semantics of the Korean Sentence-Final Suffix -Ney Revisited: Response to Chung (2012). Korean Journal of Linguistics38(1): 53–66. doi: 10.18855/lisoko.2013.38.1.003
    https://doi.org/10.18855/lisoko.2013.38.1.003 [Google Scholar]
  38. Lakoff, Robin
    1989 The limits of politeness: Therapeutic and courtroom discourse. Multilingua8: 101–129. doi: 10.1515/mult.1989.8.2‑3.101
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.101 [Google Scholar]
  39. Lee, Chung-min
    1976 Cases for Psychological Verbs in Korean. Ene (Language)1(1): 256–296.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 1980 Syntax and Semantics of Conditional and Causal Constructions in Korean. Selected Papers from the 1st International Conference on Korean Studies , 644–656. Seoul: The Korea Academy of Korea Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2011/2012 Evidentials and modals: What makes them unique. International Journal of Language Data Processing (SDV)35/36: 71–98.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Lee, Hyo Sang
    1985 Consciously-known but unassimilated information: A pragmatic analysis of the epistemic modal -kwun in Korean. Proceedings of the First Pacific Linguistics Conference , 183–210. Eugene: Department of Linguistics, University of Oregon.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 1993 Cognitive constraints on expressing newly perceived information, with reference to epistemic modal suffixes in Korean. Cognitive Linguistics4(2): 135–167. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.2.135
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.2.135 [Google Scholar]
  44. Lim, Dong Sik
    2010Evidentials and Interrogatives: A Case Study from Korean. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California Ph.D. dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Metts, Sandra & Sally Planalp
    2002 Emotional communication. In M. Knapp & J.A. Daly (eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed.), 339–373. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Park, Jin Ho
    2011 Grammatical Elements Containing Evidential or Mirative Components in Korean. Language & Information Society15: 1–25.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Park, Naree
    2013 A study on descriptions of contraction form ’dani’ in KFL grammar. Bilingual Research51: 45–80.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Rhee, Seongha
    2012 Context-induced reinterpretation and (inter)subjectification: the case of grammaticalization of sentence-final particles. Language Sciences34(3): 284–300. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2011.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2011.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  49. Slobin, Dan & Ayhan Aksu
    1982 Tense, aspect, and modality in the use of Turkish evidential. In P.J. Hopper (ed.), Tense-aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics, 185–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.1.13slo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.1.13slo [Google Scholar]
  50. So-Hartmann, Helga
    2009A descriptive grammar of Daai Chin (STEDT Monograph 7). Berkeley, CA: Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Sohn, Ho-Min
    1994Korean. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 1999The Korean Language. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Sohn, Sung-Ock
    2011 Historical development of quotative constructions in Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics18: 126–143.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 2012 Development of stance markers in Korean: diachronic and discourse perspectives. Paper presented at the Tutorial on Discourse Analysis, Workshop on Epistemicity, Evidentiality and Attitude . HongKong Polytech University, Sept 2.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Strauss, Susan
    2005 Cognitive realization markers: A discourse-pragmatic study of the sentence ending particles -kwun, -ney, and -tela . Language Sciences2: 437–480. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2004.09.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2004.09.014 [Google Scholar]
  56. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    1989 On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language65: 31–55. doi: 10.2307/414841
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414841 [Google Scholar]
  57. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Ekkehard König
    1991 The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Elizabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. I, 189–218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.19.1.10clo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.1.10clo [Google Scholar]
  58. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard Dasher
    2002Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2003 From subjectification to intersubjectification. In R. Hickey (ed.), Motives for language change, 124–139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009 [Google Scholar]
  60. Van Eijk, J.P
    1997 CVC reduplication in Salish. Trends in linguistics studies and monographs107: 453–476.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Watters, David E
    2002A grammar of Kham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486883
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486883 [Google Scholar]
  62. Willett, Thomas
    1988 A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language12: 51–97. doi: 10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil [Google Scholar]
  63. Zeevat, Henk
    2013 Expressing surprise by particles. In Daniel Gutzmann & Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds.), Beyond expressives: Explorations in use conditional meaning (Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface 28), 297–320. Leiden: Brill. doi: 10.1163/9789004183988_010
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004183988_010 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sl.40.4.04ahn
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