Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics
Vol. 32:2 (2022) ► pp.218–245

A corpus-based study on contrast and concessivity of the connective ‑ciman in Korean

| Ajou University
Providing a corpus-based analysis of the contrastive connective -ciman in Korean, this study demonstrates that global connections are as frequent as local connections as opposed to previous literature. In representing various senses possible with a -ciman connection, this study adopts a fuzzy representation, where meanings range from conceptual to discoursal. The identified meanings include explicit contrast, denial of expectation, speech act hedges and idiomatic expressions. The fuzzy representation is supported for at least two reasons. First, categorization of some cases is often blurred. Second, it can better capture the relatedness of various meanings whose enduring sense concerns ‘contrast’. It is further revealed that interpretations of -ciman phrases are compositionally made with co-occurring linguistic units. The “pragmatic” meanings of -ciman constructions are explained in terms of different levels of representations in which the contrast occurs. We further investigate the possibility of -ciman as a stance/discourse marker with accompanying expressions.
Keywords: contrast, concessivity, -ciman , Korean, fuzzy representation, stance marker
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Contrastive connectives
    • 2.2Contrastive connectives in Korean
  • 3.Data and methods
  • 4.Analysis and discussion
    • 4.1Prevalence of global connection
    • 4.2Explicit contrast
    • 4.3Denial of expectations
    • 4.4Speech act hedges
      • 4.4.1Referring to a precondition or prior information (i.e., as)
      • 4.4.2Adding information (i.e., in addition to)
      • 4.4.3Introducing a sub-topic
    • 4.5Idiomatic expressions
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 24 August 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.20042.lee
References (41)
References
Baranzini, Laura, and Alda Mari. 2019. “From Epistemic Modality to Concessivity: Alternatives and Pragmatic Reasoning per absurdum”. Journal of Pragmatics 1421: 116–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bell, D. M. 1998. “Cancellative Markers: A Core/Periphery Approach.” Pragmatics 81: 515–541. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic Constrains in Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 1989. “Denial and Contrast: A Relevance Theoretic Analysis of But.” Linguistics and Philosophy 121: 15–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephan Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carter, Ronald, and Michael McCarthy. 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Choi, Hyenpay. 1937. Wulimalpon. [Korean Grammar]. Seoul: Top Publishing.Google Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo, and Katriel Tamar. 1977. “Between Semantics and Pragmatics: The Two Types of ‘but’ – Hebrew ‘aval’ and ‘ela’.” Theoretical Linguistics 41: 143–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1990. “An Approach to Discourse Markers.” Journal of Pragmatics 141: 383–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. “Contrastive Discourse Markers in English.” In Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory, eds. by A. H. Jucker, and Y. Ziv, 301–326. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gray, Bethany, and Douglas Biber. 2014. “Stance Markers.” In Corpus Pragmatics, eds. by Karin Aijmer, and Christoph Rühlemann, 219–248. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A., and R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
He, Wung. 1977. Wuliyeysmalpon [Grammar of Old Korean]. Seoul: Saymmwunhwasa.Google Scholar
Helmer, Henrike, Silke Reineke, and Arnulf Deppermann. 2016. “A Range of Uses of Negative Epistemic Constructions in German: ICH WEIß NICHT as a Resource for Dispreferred Actions.” Journal of Pragmatics 1061: 97–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia. 2005. Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Representing Time: An Essay on Temporality and Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2016. Meaning in Linguistic Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1971. “If’s, and’s and but’s about Conjunction.” In Studies in Linguistic Semantics, eds. by C. Filmore, and D. Langenden, 114–149. New York: Holt, Reinhard and Winston. 114–149.Google Scholar
Lee, Huyca, and Conghuy Lee. 1999. Theyksuthu Pwunsekcek Kwuke Emiuy Yenkwu [A Text-Analytic Approach to Korean Endings]. Seoul: HankwukmwunhwasaGoogle Scholar
Lee, Hye-Kyung. 2002. “Towards a New Typology of Connectives with Special Reference to Conjunction in English and Korean.” Journal of Pragmatics 341: 851–866. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “A Corpus-Pragmatic Analysis of Wuli .” Discourse and Cognition 22(3): 59–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Hyo Sang. 1991. Tense, Aspect and Modality: A Discourse-Pragmatic Analysis of Verbal Suffix in Korean from a Typological Perspective. Ph.D. Dissertation, UCLA.
Lee, Iksep, and Hongpin Im. 1983. Kwukemwunpeplon. [Korean Grammar]. Seoul: Tayhaksa.Google Scholar
Lee, Keedong. 1993. “The Pragmatic Function of the Connective Nuntey.” Ene [Korean Journal of Linguistics] 5(1): 119–135.Google Scholar
Lee, Keum-Hee. 2018. Pocosa manun kyelhaphyeng yenkyel phyohyeney tayhaye: -cimanun, -tamanun, -(u)kkamanun lyu cwungsimulo. [Final endings + particle Maneun on coupled forms focused mainly -jimaneun, -damaneun, -eulkkmaneun]. Kwukehak [Journal of Korean Linguistics] 861: 63–88.Google Scholar
Lee, Unkyeng. 2000. Kwukeuy Cepsokemi Yenkwu [A Study of Korean Conjunctive Suffixes]. Seoul: Thayhaksa.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Mosegaard Hansen, Maj-Britt. 1998. The Function of Discourse Particles: A Study with Special Reference to Spoken Standard French. Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nam, Kisim, and Yengkun Ko. 1983. Phyocwunkwukemwunpeplon. [Grammar of the Standard Korean]. Seoul: Top PublishingGoogle Scholar
Park, Jae-Yeon. 2014. “Hankwuke Yenkyelemi Uymi Hwakcangeyseuy Hwanyuwa Unyu [Metonymy and Metaphor in the Semantic Extensions of Korean Connective Endings].” Kwukehak [Journal of Korea Linguistics] 701: 117–155.Google Scholar
Park, Yong-Yae. 1999. “The Korean Connective Nuntey in Conversational Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 311:191–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence. 1985. Common Discourse Particles in English Conversation. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-Min. 1999. The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2013. Korean. Seoul: Korea University PressGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition (Second edition with postface). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weatherall, Ann. 2011. “I Don’t Know as a Prepositioned Epistemic Hedge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 44(4): 317–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yoon, Phyenghyen. 1989. Kwukeuy Cepsokemiey Tayhan Yenkwu. [A study of Korean Conjunctive Suffixes]. Ph.D. Dissertation. Cheonnam National University. Korea.
Zafiu, Rodica. 2018. Epistemic and Evidential Markers in the Rhetorical Context of Concession. Journal of Pragmatics 1281: 116–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Xiang, Tianyu, Li Gao & Wenming Liu
2024. Research on Automatic Annotation Method of Korean Language under Data Driving and Fusion. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences 9:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. 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.