Cover not available
Article published In:
Interpersonal Meaning: Systemic Functional Linguistics perspectives
Edited by J.R. Martin
[Functions of Language 25:1] 2018
► pp. 20–53

Interpersonal grammar of Korean

A Systemic Functional Linguistics perspective

| University of New South Wales

This paper provides an account of interpersonal resources in Korean from the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistics. The focus is upon the paradigmatic interdependency of addressee deference, mood, stance and politeness, and the syntagmatic interaction of their realisations with polarity, modality, vocation and the participant deference in this language. Specifically, this paper puts two arguments forward. One is that the system of formality is fundamental in Korean. The system has two choices: formal and informal. mood and addressee deference belong to formal resources, and involve power-oriented language use. stance and politeness are informal resources, and involve solidarity-oriented language use. The other argument is that realisations of interpersonal resources are scattered across ranks in Korean. The paper advocates SFL’s top-down paradigmatic perspective, which enables us to pull resources together in an account that formalises their interdependency while respecting their divergent realisations.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The system of formality
    • 2.1 mood
    • 2.2 addressee deference
    • 2.3 stance
    • 2.4 politeness
  • 3.The system of polarity
  • 4.The system of modality
  • 5.Other interpersonal resources
    • 5.1The system of vocation
    • 5.2The system of participant deference
    • 5.3Grammatical metaphor
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 10 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.17017.shi
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra
2004 Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra & R. M. W. Dixon
2003 Studies in evidentiality. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Lucien
2015a Honorifics and politeness. In Lucien Brown & Jaehoon Yeon (eds.), 303–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015b Revisiting “polite” ‑yo and “deferential” ‑supnita speech style shifting in Korean from the viewpoint of indexicality. Journal of Pragmatics 791. 43–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Browng, Lucien & Jaehoon Yeon
(eds.) 2015 The handbook of Korean linguistics. Oxford: Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace & Johanna Nichols
(eds.) 1986 Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Cho, Choon-Hak
1982 A study of Korean pragmatics: Deixis and politeness. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
1997 Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1(1). 33–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K.
1984 Language as code and language as behaviour: A Systemic-Functional interpretation of the nature and ontogenesis of dialogue. In Robin Fawcett, M. A. K. Halliday, Sydney M. Lamb & Adam Makkai (eds.), The semiotics of language and culture Vol 1: Language as social semiotic, 3–35. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
2014 An introduction to functional grammar. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hur, Woong
1995 20 seyki wuli maluy hyengtaylon (Korean morphology in the twentieth century). Seoul: Saem Munhwasa.Google Scholar
Kim, Chung-sook, Dong-Ho Park, Byung-kyu Lee, Hai-Young Lee, Hee Jung Jung, Jeong Soon Choe & Yong Heo
2005 Oykwukinul wihan hankuke munpep (Korean grammar for international learners) Vol 2. Seoul: Communications Books.Google Scholar
Kwon, Jae-il
2012 Hankuke munpepnon (Korean grammar). Seoul: Tae Hak Sa.Google Scholar
Lee, Hyo Sang
2015 Modality. In Lucien Brown & Jaehoon Yeon (eds.), 249–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Ik-Seop & Wan Chae
1999 Kuke munpepnon kanguy (Lectures on Korean grammar). Seoul: Hak Yeon Sa.Google Scholar
Lee, Keedong
1993 A Korean grammar on semantic-pragmatic principles. Seoul: Hanguk Munhwa Sa.Google Scholar
Lukoff, Fred
1977 Ceremonial and expressive uses of the styles of address in Korean. In Chin-W. Kim (ed.), Papers in Korean linguistics, 269–296. Columbia, SC: Hornbeam Press.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R.
1992 English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Systemic Functional Grammar: A next step into the theory – axial relations. Beijing: Higher Education Press.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. & Peter R. R. White
2005 The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sohn, Ho-Min
1999 The Korean language. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Song, Jae Jung
2005 The Korean language: Structure, use and context. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strauss, Susan
2005 Cognitive realization markers in Korean: A discourse-pragmatic study of the sentence-ending particles ‑kwun, ‑ney and ‑tela . Language Sciences 271. 437–480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suh, Cheong-soo
1984 Contaypep yenkwu (Research on Korean honorifics). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Sung, Ky-chull
1985 Hyentay taywupep yenkwu (Research on contemporary Korean honorifics). Seoul: Kaymunsa.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Li, Dongqi
2023. Methodology. In A Systemic Functional Typology of MOOD [The M.A.K. Halliday Library Functional Linguistics Series, ], ► pp. 75 ff. DOI logo
Li, Dongqi
2023. Literature Review. In A Systemic Functional Typology of MOOD [The M.A.K. Halliday Library Functional Linguistics Series, ], ► pp. 29 ff. DOI logo
Martin, J. R., Beatriz Quiroz & Giacomo Figueredo
2021. Introduction: Theory and Description in Interpersonal Grammar across Languages. In Interpersonal Grammar, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Zhang, Dongbing
2021. Tense in Khorchin Mongolian: an interpersonal perspective. Language Sciences 85 ► pp. 101371 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 may 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.