Cover not available
Part of
Different Slants on Grammaticalization
Edited by Sylvie Hancil and Vittorio Tantucci
[Studies in Language Companion Series 232] 2023
► pp. 198–236

Chapter 8
On the development of discourse markers from elliptical structures

| Faculty of Liberal Arts, Mahidol University, | Hankuk University of Foreign Studies,
Korean has a group of DMs that developed from sentential fragments through ellipsis (EDMs), i.e., those that were morpho-syntactically incapable of standing alone. They carry diverse functions across discourse domains. In particular, they tend to mark the speaker’s affect, and this development is largely due to their lexical and structural characteristics. A diachronic analysis shows that their development is closely tied to semantic generalization, scope extension, and movement to non-licensed positions. The functions of EDMs are often correlated with their characteristic prosody rather than with their forms. All EDMs involve either deictic expressions or interrogatives which are related to indexicality and vagueness that play a significant role in the development of EDM functions.
Keywords: discourse marker, ellipsis, prosody, periphery, stance, indexicality, vagueness
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Preliminaries: EDMs and previous studies
  • 3.Data and EDM functions
    • 3.1DM functional domains
    • 3.2Interaction management functions of EDMs
      • 3.2.1Pause-filling
    • 3.3Information management
      • 3.3.1Disregard
      • 3.3.2Mirativity
      • 3.3.3Mitigation/deflection
      • 3.3.4Uncertainty
    • 3.4Interlocutor management
      • 3.4.1Feigned surprise
      • 3.4.2Challenge/protest
      • 3.4.3Discontent
      • 3.4.4Reproach
      • 3.4.5Sarcasm
      • 3.4.6Hesitance/reluctance
      • 3.4.7Upcoming disalignment
  • 4.Historical development
    • 4.1Mwusun ‘what kind of’
    • 4.2Ilen ‘this kind of’
    • 4.3Celen ‘that kind of’
    • 4.4Weyn ‘what kind of’
    • 4.5Weynkel ‘what kind of a thing’
    • 4.6Mwel ‘what’
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Significance of elliptical structure
    • 5.2DM characteristics
      • 5.2.1Morphosyntax
      • 5.2.2Semantics
      • 5.2.3Phonology
      • 5.2.4Pragmatics
    • 5.3Source characteristics
  • 6.Summary and conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 13 July 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.232.08rhe
References (82)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 1996. Conversational Routines in English: Convention and Creativity [Studies in Language and Linguistics]. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 2002. English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 10]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, Karin, Foolen, Ad & Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. 2006. Pragmatic markers in translation: A methodological proposal. In Approaches to Discourse Particles, Kerstin Fischer (ed.), 101–114. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2002. On the development of final though: A case of grammaticalization? In New Reflections on Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 49], Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds), 345–361. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beeching, Kate & Detges, Ulrich (eds). 2014. Discourse Functions at the Left and Right Periphery: Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1989. Intonation and its Uses: Melody in Grammar and Discourse. London: Edward Arnold. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. The Evolution of Pragmatic Markers in English: Pathways of Change. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dehé, Nicole & Kavalova, Yordanka. 2006. The syntax, pragmatics, and prosody of parenthetical what. English Language and Linguistics 10(2): 289–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), 366–431. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2009. Insubordination and the grammaticalization of interactive presuppositions. Paper presented at Methodologies in Determining Morphosyntactic Change Conference, Museum of Ethnography, Osaka, March.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Watanabe, Honoré (eds). 2016. Insubordination [Typological Studies in Language 115]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin. 2006. Toward an understanding of the spectrum of approaches to discourse particles: Introduction to the volume. In Approaches to Discourse Particles, Kerstin Fischer (ed.), 1–20. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1999. What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31: 931–952. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Furkó, Bálint Péter. 2014. Cooptation over grammaticalization. Argumentum 10: 289–300.Google Scholar
Hancil, Sylvie. 2013. Introduction. In Hancil & Hirst (eds), 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hancil, Sylvie & Hirst, Daniel (eds). 2013. Prosody and Iconicity [Iconicity in Language and Literature 13]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 1997. Alors and donc in spoken French: A reanalysis. Journal of Pragmatics 28(2): 153–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2014. Sequentiality in dialogue as a trigger for grammaticalization. In Grammaticalization – Theory and Data [Studies in Language Companion Series 162], Sylvie Hancil & Ekkehard König (eds), 203–234, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Left vs. right periphery in grammaticalization: The case of anyway. In New Directions in Grammaticalization Research [Studies in Language Companion Series 166], Andrew D. M. Smith, Graeme Trousdale, & Richard Waltereit (eds), 157–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Spontaneous Spoken English: An Integrated Approach to the Emergent Grammar of Speech. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. The gradual coalescence into ‘words’ in grammaticalization. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds), 342–355.Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2013. On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else? Linguistics 51(6): 1205–1247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Are there two different ways of approaching grammaticalization? In New Trends on Grammaticalization and Language Change [Studies in Language Companion Series 202], Sylvie Hancil, Tine Breban & José Vicente Lozano (eds), 23–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Kaltenböck, Gunther, Kuteva, Tania & Long, Haiping. 2021. The Rise of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jeon, Yeong-Ok. 2002. A study on discourse markers in Korean. Journal of Speech Communication 4: 113–145.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. 2002. Discourse markers in Early Modern English. In Alternative Histories of English, Richard Watts & Peter Trudgill (eds), 210–230. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jung, Yonhee. 2001. Grammaticalization of Korean Clause Connectives. PhD dissertation, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Seoul.
Kim, In-gyu. 2012. A Study on Usages of Korean Reference Items: Focused on the Data of Oral Conversation in Gyeongbuk Dialect. MA thesis, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea.
Kim, Mary Shin, Rhee, Seongha & Smith, Hye Young. 2021. The Korean discourse particle kulssey across discreet positions and contexts in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 182: 16–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Myung-Hee. 2005. The development of Korean interrogatives as discourse markers. Discourse and Cognition 12(2): 41–63.Google Scholar
. 2006. Discourse functions of interrogative mwusun in Korean. Discourse and Cognition 13(2): 21–42.Google Scholar
Kim, Myung-Hee & Lee, Jeonghwa. 2007. The role of subjectivity and intersubjectivity in the grammaticalization of icey in Korean. Discourse and Cognition 14(2): 27–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Sunyoung. 2016. Discourse marker functions of museun in spoken discourse. The Language and Culture 12(3): 83–98.Google Scholar
Kim, Tae Yeop. 2001. Kwuke Congkyelemiuy Mwunpep (Grammar of Korean sentence-final markers). Seoul: Kwukhakcalyowen.Google Scholar
Kim, Young-Ran. 2003. Lexical Information and Teaching Methods of Korean Interrogatives for Korean Language Education. PhD dissertation, Sangmyung University, Seoul.
Kim, Xianghua. 2002. A Study of Discourse Markers in Korean. PhD dissertation, Keimyung University, Daegu, Korea.
Ko, Yong-Kun. 1991. Phyocwun Cwungseykwuke Mwunpeplon (Middle Korean grammar). Seoul: Tower Press.Google Scholar
Koo, Hyun Jung. 2005. Conditional markers in speech context: From conditional to politeness. Discourse and Cognition 12(2): 1–22.Google Scholar
. 2012. On grammaticalization of ‑kinun construction in Korean. Discourse and Cognition 19(3): 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Hankwuke tamhwaphyoci yenkwuuy tonghyangkwa cenmang (Research tends and prospect of Korean discourse markers). In Hankwuke Yenkwuuy Saylowun Hulum (New research trends of Korean), Yong-Kwon Shin, (ed.), 221–255. Seoul: Pagijong Press.Google Scholar
Koo, Hyun Jung & Rhee, Seongha. 2001. Grammaticalization of sentential end marker from a conditional marker. Discourse and Cognition 8(1): 1–19.Google Scholar
. 2018. On the emergence of polyfunctionality of discourse markers: The case of kulay ‘it is so’ in Korean. Paper presented at the 36th International Conference of the Spanish Society for Applied Linguistics (AESLA-2018), Universidad de Cádiz, Cádiz, Spain, 19–21 April.
Lee, Heejoo & Sohn, Sung-Ock S. Forthcoming. From interrogative to disaffiliative stance marker: An analysis of mwusun ‘what’ in Korean conversation. University of California, Los Angeles.
Lee, Hye Seung. 2020. Korean interrogative mwusun ‘what kind of’ as a discourse marker. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 26: 323–333.Google Scholar
Lee, Hyo Sang. 1991. Tense, Aspect, and Modality: A Discourse-pragmatic Analysis of Verbal Affixes in Korean from a Typological Perspective. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
. 2015. Modality. In The Handbook of Korean Linguistics, Lucien Brown & Jaehoon Yeon (eds), 249–268. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Kigap. 2010. Dialectal variation of Korean discourse markers, geunyang, geujeo, and geuman. Journal of Korean Dialectology 11: 5–35.Google Scholar
Lee, Kwang-Ho. 1994. Cwungseykwuke Mwunpeplon (Middle Korean grammar). Seoul: Hakyeonsa.Google Scholar
. 2009. Meaning property and form change of ‘musu’ and ‘musuk/musum/musus.’ Korean Language and Literature 151: 35–57.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2015[1982]. Thoughts on Grammaticalization, 3rd edn. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2006. Deixis. In The Handbook of Pragmatics, Laurence R. Horn & Gregory L. Ward (eds), 87–120. London: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Yael. 1994. Metalanguaging and discourse markers in bilingual conversation. Language in Society 23: 325–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Metalanguage in Interaction: Hebrew Discourse Markers [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 181]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Onodera, Noriko O. 2004. Japanese Discourse Markers: Synchronic and Diachronic Discourse Analysis [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 132]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Park, Keun-young. 2006. Grammaticalization of ‘I, geu, jeo’. The Language and Culture 2(1): 65–93.Google Scholar
Park, Mee-Jeong & Sohn, Sung-Ock S. 2002. Discourse, grammaticalization, and intonation: An analysis of ‑ketun in Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 10: 306–319.Google Scholar
Park, Sang-Sook. 2020. Discourse Functions and Prosody in the Expression of Interrogative. PhD dissertation, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul.
Rhee, Seongha. 2012. Context-induced reinterpretation and (inter)subjectification: The case of grammaticalization of sentence-final particles. Language Sciences 34: 284–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. On the emergence of Korean markers of agreement. Journal of Pragmatics 83: 10–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Grammaticalization of the plural marker in Korean: From object to text to stance. Journal of Language Sciences 25(4): 221–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020a. The power of the unspoken: Ellipsis and grammaticalization in Korean and beyond. Studies in Linguistics 56: 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020b. On determinants of discourse marker functions: Grammaticalization and discourse-analytic perspectives. Linguistic Research 37(2): 289–325.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha & Koo, Hyun Jung. 2017. Audience-blind sentence-enders in Korean: A discourse-pragmatic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 120: 101–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. From quotation to surprise: The case in Korean. Journal of Pragmatics 155: 83–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. On divergent paths and functions of ‘background’-based discourse markers in Korean. In Studies at the Grammar-Discourse Interface [Studies in Language Companion Series 219], Alexander Haselow & Sylvie Hancil (eds), 77–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ryu, Chang-Don. 1980. Ehwisa Yenkwu (A study of lexical history). Seoul: Iwoo Publishing.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence. 1999. Discourse markers. Lingua 107: 227–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shin, Eun Kyung. 2012. An Analysis of the Function ‘irae, geurae, jeorae’ in Spoken Korean. MA thesis, Konkuk University, Seoul.
Sohn, Sung-Ock. 1995. On the development of sentence-final particles in Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 5: 219–234.Google Scholar
Sohn, Sung-Ock & Kim, Stephanie Hyeri. 2014. The interplay of discourse and prosody at the left and right periphery in Korean: An analysis of kuntey‘but’. In Discourse Functions at the Left and Right Periphery: Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change, Kate Beeching & Ulrich Detges (eds), 221–249. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Song, Inseong. 2013. Functions and prosodic features of discourse marker mweo. Korean Linguistics 58: 83–106.Google Scholar
. 2014. Prosodic features and discourse functions of discourse marker mak. Korean Linguistics 65: 211–236.Google Scholar
. 2015. Functions and Prosodic Features of Korean Discourse Markers. PhD disseration, Korea University, Seoul.
Song, Inseong & Shin, Jiyoung. 2014. The realization of functions and morphological, prosodic features of discourse marker jom. Korean Linguistics 62: 315–339.Google Scholar
Tabor, Whitney & Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1998. Structural scope expansion and grammaticalization. In The Limits of Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 37], Anna Giacalone Ramat & Paul J. Hopper (eds), 229–272. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2014. Intersubjectification and clause periphery. In Intersubjectivity and Intersubjectification in Grammar and Discourse [Benjamins Current Topics 65], Lieslotte Brems, Lobke Ghesquière & Freek Van de Velde (eds), 7–27. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waltereit, Richard. 2002. Imperatives, interruption in conversation and the rise of discourse markers: A study of Italian guarda. Linguistics 40: 987–1010. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre. 2011. The conceptual-procedural distinction: Past, present and future. In Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti & Aoife Ahern (eds), 3–31. Bingley: Emerald. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwickey, Arnold M. 1985. Clitics and particles. Language 61(2): 283–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Rhee, Seongha
2023. Intertwined grammaticalization, degrammaticalization, and pragmaticalization: The case of ppwun ‘share’ in Korean. Lingua 291 ► pp. 103559 ff. 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.