Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics
Vol. 31:2 (2021) ► pp.303–329

Positively bitter and negatively sweet?

Conventional implicatures and compatibility condition of emotive taste terms in Korean vs. English

ORCID logo | University of Texas at Arlington
The goal of this study is to propose a pragmatic analysis of what we call Emotive Taste Terms (ETTs) in Korean, compared to English. What makes Korean taste adjectives special is its multidimensional meaning: In descriptive dimension, (i) the literal meaning concerns the taste; or (ii) it can be extended toward the situation, yielding a figurative meaning. In expressive dimension, (iii) the choice of particular derivation form reflects the speaker’s positive or negative emotional attitude; and (iv) another potential expressive meaning concerns honorification, thought it is not part of the meaning of ETTs. We thus propose that ETTs are a novel subcase of expressive elements, triggering Conventional Implicature. We show how the analysis of ETTs as a CI allows us to successfully derive subtle connotational differences amongst numerous variants. Finally, we show how the co-occurrence pattern of multiple expressives, ETTs and other expressives, within the sentence can be captured by Compatibility Condition Model.
Keywords: conventional implicature, compatibility condition, emotive taste term (ETT), multidimensionality, expressives
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The landscape of taste adjectives in Korean
    • 2.1Variants of sweet taste
    • 2.2Variants of bitter taste
    • 2.3Variants of salty taste
    • 2.4Derivation of taste terms
  • 3.The meaning of taste terms in Korean
    • 3.1Emotive taste terms as expressives
    • 3.2The effect of emotive taste terms in context
  • 4.Compatibility condition for multiple expressives
    • 4.1Compatibility between ETTs and expressive nouns
    • 4.2Compatibility between ETTs and expressive case markers
    • 4.3Compatibility between ETTs and expressive verbs
    • 4.4Compatibility condition, cumulative effects, and multidimensionality
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 17 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17008.yoo
References (23)
References
Berlin, Brent and Paul Kay. 1969. Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley, University of California Press.Google Scholar
Choe, Jae-Woong. 2004. “Obligatory Honorification and the Honorific Feature.” Studies in Generative Grammar 141, 545–559.Google Scholar
Dictionary of the National Institute of Korean Language. 2008. National Institute of Korean Language.Google Scholar
Dunn, Cynthia Dickel. 2010. “Information Structure and Discourse Stance in a Monologic “Public Speaking” Register of Japanese.” Journal of Pragmatics 421: 1890–1911. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia and Suwon Yoon. 2009. “Metalinguistic Functions and the Expressive Dimension in Greek and Korean: Attitude Semantics, Expressive Meaning and NPI Licensing.” In Proceedings of the 13th Sinn und Bedeutung, ed. by L. Geist, K. von Heusinger, H. Kamp, U. Klein, F. Martin, E. Onea, A. Riester, and T. Solstad, 141–156. Stuttgart: Online Publikationsverbund der Universität Stuttgart (OPUS).Google Scholar
. 2011. “The Subjective Mode of Comparison: Metalinguistic Comparatives in Greek and Korean.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29 (3): 621–655. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ginatulin, Laman M. 1972. “The Semantics of Words and Sense Organs.” Foreign Philology, 1. Ama-Ata.Google Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel and Katharina Turgay. 2012. “Expressive Intensifiers in German: Syntaxsemantics Mismatches.” In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 91. ed. by C. Piñón, 149–166.Google Scholar
Jeong, Su-Jin. 2012. “A Cognitive Analysis of the Meaning Extension of Sensual Nouns in Korean.” Hanmincokemwunhak 601: 271–290.Google Scholar
Joe, Jieun and Chungmin Lee. 2002. “A ‘Removal’ Type of Negative Predicates.” In Proceedings of the 10th Japanese Korean Linguistics Conference. CSLI Publication.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher and Louise McNally. 2010. “Taste, Context and Compositionality.” Synthese 174 (1): 79–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Hae-Mi. 2009. A Study on the Semantic Schema and Extension Principle of Taste Adjectives. MA thesis. Chonbuk National University.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok and Peter Sells. 2007. “Korean Honorification: A Kind of Expressive Meaning.” Journal of East Asian Linguistics Journal 161: 303–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCready, Eric. 2004. “Two Japanese Adverbials and Expressive Content.” Semantics and Linguistic Theory 141: 163–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Potts, Christopher. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicature. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
. 2007a. “The Expressive Dimension.” Theoretical Linguistics 331: 165–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007b. The dimensions of quotation. In Direct compositionality, ed. C. Barker, P. Jacobson, 405–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher and Shigeto Kawahara. 2004. “Japanese Honorifics as Emotive Definite Descriptions.” Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 141: 235–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yae, James and Suwon Yoon. 2017. “Compatibility Condition for Expressives Revisited: a Big Data-based Trend Analysis.” Language Sciences 641: 69–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yoon, Hyejoon. 2012. “A Comparative Study on the Meaning Shift and Meaning Extension of Taste-terms, Focused on Sweet-taste Adjectives in Korean, German and English.” Language Information 151: 115–132.Google Scholar
Yoon, Suwon. 2011. ‘Not’ in the Mood: the Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics of Evaluative Negation. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Chicago.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Parametric Variation in Subordinate Evaluative Negation: Japanese/Korean vs. Others.” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 22 (2): 133–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Semantic Constraint and Pragmatic Nonconformity for Expressives: Compatibility Condition on Slurs, Epithets, Anti-honorifics, Intensifiers, and Mitigators.” Special issue on Slurs at Language Sciences 521: 46–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar