Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics: Online-First Articles

Setting subject and the inferential cleft construction in Korean

ORCID logo | University of Minnesota Duluth
| Academy of Korean Studies, SOAS University of London
| Kyung Hee University

This article aims to develop a cognitive-functional analysis of the Korean inferential cleft construction (ICC) by identifying two motivations. It is demonstrated that the ICC must be understood as a mechanism to improve coherence and relevance in the text; it is first and foremost motivated to establish relationships between the preceding context and the event denoted by the subordinate clause headed by kes. By pointing out that attempts to ascertain concrete meanings of the ICC are bound to be futile, we argue that various meanings the ICC exhibits arise by mapping it onto the result phase of the epistemic cycle. The second motivation for the ICC is to put the proposition in the spotlight by indicating that the global circumstances, not the speaker, warrant judgment. Consequently, the speaker staves off the responsibility for her epistemic judgment.

Keywords: epistemic cycle, epistemic judgment, inferential cleft construction, reference point, setting subject, specificational copula
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1The ICC in other languages
    • 2.2Cleft constructions in Korean
    • 2.3Setting subject and reference point
      • 2.3.1Setting subject
      • 2.3.2Reference point
  • 3.Characteristic properties of the Korean ICC
    • 3.1Two types of -n kes-i-ta and differences in genres
    • 3.2Copular constructions
    • 3.3Similarity to the specificational copula
    • 3.4Topicality and subjectivity of the ICC
  • 4.Discursive properties
  • 5.A cognitive linguistic turn
    • 5.1Information structure (IS) of the ICC
    • 5.2The conceptual structure of the ICC
    • 5.3Epistemic control
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • The abbreviations used in this article are as follows
  • References
Published online: 29 April 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00182.par
References
Ahn, J.
(1997) Hankwuke myengsauy mwunpephwa hyensang yenkwu [A study of the phenomenon of grammarticization in the Korean noun]. Seoul, Korea: Hankuk Munhwasa.Google Scholar
Ahn, H.
(2001) Hyentay kwukeuy uyconmyengsa yenkwu [A study on bound nouns in Modern Korean]. Seoul, Korea: Yeklak.Google Scholar
Bearth, T.
(1997) Inferential and counter-inferential grammatical markers in Swahili dialogue. Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere, 51 1, 1–22.Google Scholar
(1999) The inferential gap condition. Pragmatics, 9 1, 249–288.Google Scholar
Büring, D.
(2016) Intonation and meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cho, M.
(2017) Hankwuke kyoyukul wihan phyohyenmwunhyeng ‘-nun kesita’uy tamhwakinung yenkwu – mwunpephwalul thonghay hoyktukhan yangthay uymilul pathangulo [A Study on the discourse function of expressive grammatical form ‘-neun geosida’ for teaching Korean: Based on modal meaning through grammaticalization]. Seoul, Korea: Hankuk University of Foreign Studies MA thesis.
Cho, Y.
(2021) Hankwuke phyohyenmwunhyeng ‘-un/-nun kesit’a tamhwakinung – sacek tayhwalul cwungsimulo [A Study on the Discourse Function of Korean pattern expression, ‘-eun/neun geosida’ – Focused on Private Conversations]. Language Facts and Perspective, 54 1, 281–309.Google Scholar
Declerck, R.
(1992) The inferential it is that-construction and its congeners. Lingua, 87 1, 203–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delahunty, G.
(1990) Inferentials: The story of forgotten evidential. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 15 1, 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1995) The inferential construction. Pragmatics, 5 (3), 341–364.Google Scholar
(2001) Discourse functions of inferential sentences. Linguistics, 39 (3), 514–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delahunty, G., & Gatzkiewicz, L.
(2000) On the Spanish inferential construction ser que. Pragmatics, 10 (3), 301–322.Google Scholar
Den Dikken, M.
(2001) Specificational copular sentences and pseudo-clefts. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The syntax companion. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, N.
(2007) Information structure: The syntax-discourse interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R.
(1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K.
(1985) An introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Heggie, L. A.
(1988) The syntax of copular structures. Los Angeles: University of Southern California PhD dissertation.
Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hünnemeyer, F.
(1991) Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heycock, C., & Kroch, A.
(2002) Topic, focus, and syntactic representations. In L. Mikkelsen & C. Potts (Eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL, 21 1 (pp. 101–125). MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Hong, S. M.
(2006) Kwuke uyconmyengsa ‘kes’uy sacek yenkwu [A historical study on the bound noun ‘kes’ in Korean]. Korean Language and Literature, 44 1, 101–144.Google Scholar
Horn, L.
(1989) A natural history of negation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Im, H.-P.
(1987) Kwukeuy caykwisa yenkwu [A study on the reflexive ‘caki’ in Korean]. Seoul: Sinkwu Munhwasa.Google Scholar
Jeon, H.-Y.
(2005) Kwue tamhwaey nathananun ‘-n kesita’uy hwayonguymi [On the forms of ‘-n kesi’ in spoken discourse of Korean]. Journal of Korean Linguistics, 46 1, 255–276.Google Scholar
Jung, S.
(2016) ‘-n kesita’uy theyksuthu kinungkwa uymi [On the discourse functions of written Korean ‘-n kesita’]. Textlinguistics, 41 1, 245–267.Google Scholar
Kae, M.
(2019) Hankwuke kwueuy ‘-n/nun kesita’ kwumwunuy phyohyen kinung yenkwu [A study on the expressive function of sentence structure ‘-n/nun kesita’ in spoken language]. Seoul, Korea: Sogang University MA thesis.
Kim, J.-B.
(2016) Copular constructions and asymmetries in the specificational pseudocleft constructions in Korean. Language & Linguistics, 17 (1), 89–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, J.-B., & Sells, P.
(2007) Some remarks on information structure and kes . Studies in Generative Grammar, 17(4), 479–494. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) On the Korean inferential cleft construction. Studies in Modern Grammar, 64 1, 45–72.Google Scholar
Koops, C.
(2007) Constraints on inferential constructions. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 207–224). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K.
(2001) A framework for the analysis of cleft construction. Linguistics, 39 (3), 463–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 21, Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1993) Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4 (1), 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) The control cycle: Why grammar is a matter of life and death. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association, 2 1, 193–220.Google Scholar
(2004) Aspects of the grammar of finite clauses. In M. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture, and mind (pp 535–577). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2008) Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) On the subject of impersonals. In M. Brdar, S. Th. Gries & M. Ž. Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Convergence and expansion (pp. 179–218). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, E. H., & Shimojo, M.
(2016) Mismatch of topic between Japanese and Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 25 1, 81–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lim, D.-h.
(1991) Hyentay kwuke hyengsikmyengsa yenkwu [A study on the defective nouns in modern Korean]. Seoul: Seoul National University MA thesis.
Mikkelson, L.
(2004) Specifying who: On the structure, meaning, and use of specificational copular classes. Santa Cruz: University of California Santa Cruz Ph.D. dissertation.
(2005) Copular clauses: Specification, predication and equation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nam, K-S, & Ko, Y. K.
(1985) Phyocwun kwuke mwunpeplon [A reference grammar of Korean]. Seoul: Top Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Otake, Y.
(2002) Semantics and functions of the It is that-construction and the Japanese No da-construction. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 43 1, 139–153.Google Scholar
Park, C., & Yeon, J.
(2023a) Information structure in Korean: What’s new and what’s old. Journal of Pragmatics, 205 1, 16–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2023b) Notes on word order variation in Korean. Pragmatics [Published online first]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2023c) The factive, IHRC, and cleft constructions in Korean. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 21 (1), 140–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Park, J.
(2022) Uymiuy ilpanhwawa thukswuhwa [Semantic generalization and specification]. Seoul: Unpublished Lecture Notes, Seoul National University.Google Scholar
Park, N.-R.
(2012) ‘-nun kesita’ kwumwun yenkwu [The study of grammaticalized ‘-nun kesita’ – focusing on the basis of relations between its grammatical meaning, discourse function, and speakers’ strategy]. Journal of Korean Linguistics, 65 1, 251–279.Google Scholar
Park, Y.-H.
(2002) 1950nyentay soseluy panecek kipep yenkwu: Sochangsep, Jangyonghak, Kimsenghanuy soselul cwungsimulo [A Study on the variations of irony in the 1950s’ literature: With reference to the Novels of Son Chang-seop, Jang Yong-hak, Kim Seong-han]. Seoul, Korea: Korea University PhD dissertation.
Rhee, S.
(2010) Subjectification in grammaticalization revisited. Studies in Modern Grammar, 61 1, 249–274.Google Scholar
Shin, S.
(1993) ‘kesita’ kwumwuney kwanhaye. [On the ‘kesita’ construction]. Journal of Korean Linguistics, 23 1, 119–158.Google Scholar
Song, M.
(1979) Eneuy cepchokkwa kansepyuhyengey tayhaye: Hyentayhankwukewa ilponeuy kyengwu [A typological approach to language contact and interference]. Song Sim Research Journal, 10 1, 29–62.Google Scholar
Son, W.
(2022) Hankwuke ‘-n kesita’ kwumwunkwa cwungkwuke ‘si … cek’ kwumwunuy tayco yenkwu [A comparative study on the construction ‘-n kesita’ in Korean and the construction ‘shi …. de’ in Chinese]. Bilingual Research, 86 1, 145–170.Google Scholar
(2023) Hankwuke ‘kes’ kwuseng yenkwu [A study on ‘kes’ in Korean]. Seoul, Korea: Seoul National University PhD dissertation.
Strawson, P. F.
(1964) Identifying reference and truth values. Theoria, 301, 86–99.