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
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