Cover not available
Article published In:
Language and Linguistics
Vol. 24:2 (2023) ► pp.302–324

From reciprocity to competition

Subjectification of reciprocal pronouns in Korean

| Gyeongsang National University
| Seoul National University
Korean has a reciprocal pronoun that under certain conditions takes on an innovative function as a marker of competition. This meaning emerges when the marker is used in reported speech containing a predicate expressing volition, intention, or speaker-orientation. In such contexts, the marker is reanalysed as co-referential with competing subsets of subject referents. The final stage is the extension of the competition marker to simple clauses and predicates. The empirical part of this research is based on a survey with 23 native speakers. The shift from a reciprocal pronoun to a competition marker will be analysed as an instance of subjectification. The innovative use as a competition marker has led to additional distributional differences between the simple use of the marker and its reduplicated form. The situation in Korean is comparable to that in Japanese, Bulgarian, and Karachay-Balkar, and mirrors the polysemy pattern found in Tuvaluan. This is the first typological study of the relevant domain in Korean, and will be a valuable addition to the list of available studies on reciprocity and subjectification.
Keywords: subjectification, reciprocity, competition marker, reanalysis, Korean
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Reciprocal pronouns in Korean and their uses
    • 2.1The three reciprocal markers of Korean
    • 2.2Symmetrical relations
    • 2.3Reciprocal relations between groups
    • 2.4Collective relations
    • 2.5Sequential relations
  • 3.Semantic extension: Reflexive, reciprocal, and competitive meanings
    • 3.1Ambiguous uses between reflexive and reciprocal
    • 3.2Towards an exclusive interpretation as competition marker
  • 4.Theoretical perspectives: Subjectification and reanalysis
  • 5.Typological perspectives
    • 5.1Cross-linguistic variation
    • 5.2Intra-linguistic variation I: Other reciprocal pronouns
    • 5.3Intra-linguistic variation II: Reduplication of selo
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 9 April 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00132.jen
References (26)
References
Alpatov, Vladimir M. & Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 2007. Reciprocal, sociative, and competitive constructions in Japanese. In Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. (ed.), Reciprocal constructions (Typological Studies in Language 71), vol. 31, 1021–1094. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bentley, Delia & Cruschina, Silvio. 2018. The silent argument of broad focus: Typology and predictions. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1). 1–37. (Article no. 118.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Besnier, Niko. 2000. Tuvaluan: A Polynesian language of the Central Pacific. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bußmann, Hadumod. 2002. Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft [Lexicon of linguistics]. Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner Verlag.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis & Nouguier-Voisin, Sylvie. 2008. Valency-changing operations in Wolof and the notion of “co-participation”. In König, Ekkehard & Gast, Volker (eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and typological explorations, 289–305. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Kanazawa, Makoto & Kim, Yookyung & McHombo, Sam & Peters, Stanley. 1998. Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistics and Philosophy 21(2). 159–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fleischman, Suzanne. 1983. From pragmatics to grammar: Diachronic reflections on complex pasts and futures in Romance. Lingua 60(2-3). 183–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86(3). 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hong, Chai-Song. 2007. Phulangsue sanghophyociuy yuhyengloncek thukseng [Typological characteristics of French reciprocal marking]. Seoul: Seoul National University. (Manuscript.)Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1987. Emergent grammar. In Aske, Jon & Beery, Natasha & Michaelis, Laura & Filip, Hana (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General session and parasession on grammar and cognition, 139–157. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jendraschek, Gerd. 2007. La notion modale de possibilité en basque: Morphologie, syntaxe, sémantique, variations diachronique et sociolinguistique [The modal notion of possibility in Basque: Morphology, syntax, semantics, diachronic and sociolinguistic variation]. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
. 2014. Future tense, prospective aspect, and irrealis mood as part of the situation perspective: Insights from Basque, Turkish, and Papuan. In De Brabanter, Philippe & Kissine, Mikhail & Sharifzadeh, Saghie (eds.), Future times, future tenses, 138–164. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johanson, Lars. 1994. Türkeitürkische Aspektotempora [Aspect-tenses in Turkey Turkish]. In Thieroff, Rolf & Ballweg, Joachim (eds.), Tense systems in European languages, 247–266. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
King, Alan Roy. 1993. Communicative grammar of the Basque verb (selected aspects). London: Queen Mary University of London. (Doctoral dissertation.)
König, Ekkehard & Kokutani, Shigehiro. 2006. Towards a typology of reciprocal constructions: Focus on German and Japanese. Linguistics 44(2). 271–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koo, Myung-Chul & Lehmann, Christian. 2010. Modality in the Korean suffix -keyss . Language Research 46(1). 83–102. ([URL]) (Accessed 2022-10-05.)
Lander, Yury & Arkadiev, Peter. 2016. On the right of being a comparative concept. Linguistic Typology 20(2). 403–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1990. Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 1(1). 5–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 2000. Reciprocals without reflexives. In Frajzyngier, Zygmunt & Curl, Traci S. (eds.), Reciprocals: Forms and functions (Typological Studies in Language 41), vol. 21, 31–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moyse-Faurie, Claire. 2008. Constructions expressing middle, reflexive and reciprocal situations in some Oceanic languages. In König, Ekkehard & Gast, Volker (eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and typological explorations, 105–168. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
National Institute of Korean Language. 2021. Pyocwun kwuke taysacen [Korean standard dictionary]. ([URL]) (Accessed 2021-04-22.)
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. (ed.). 2007. Reciprocal constructions (Typological Studies in Language 71). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Park, Jin-Ho. 2007. Yuhyengloncek kwancemeyse pon hankwuke taymyengsa cheykyeyuy thukcing [The pronominal system of Korean viewed from a typological perspective]. Kwukehak [Journal of Korean Linguistics] 501. 115–147.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-Min. 1999. The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Davidse, Kristin & Vandelanotte, Lieven & Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (Topics in English Linguistics 66), 29–71. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter. 2014. Variations of double nominative in Korean and Japanese. In Gerland, Doris & Horn, Christian & Latrouite, Anja & Ortmann, Albert (eds.), Meaning and grammar of nouns and verbs, 339–372. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press.Google Scholar