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
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