Cover not available
Part of
Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-initial particles across languages
Edited by John Heritage and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 31] 2018
► pp. 97–118

Chapter 4
Two types of trouble with questions

A comparative perspective on turn-initial particles in Korean

| California State University, Northridge
Most previous studies of Korean conversation have focused on clause- or sentence-final elements to describe various interactional strategies of conversationalists. This chapter demonstrates that the beginnings of a turn in Korean are also an interactionally important place, and provides a comparative analysis of two turn-initial particles used in responses to questions: kulssey and kulenikka. Both particles can be translated as well in the target sequential position and index that there is some trouble with the question. However, each particle is used for addressing a particular type of trouble with the preceding question and for indexing a specific upcoming action. This chapter includes an account for how the particles may have acquired these functions, and a brief comparison of the particles to the comparable English particle well.
Keywords: comparative perspective, Korean, kulenikka , kulssey , questions, responses, trouble, turn-initial particles, well
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Constraints on question
  • 3.Two turn-initial particles at response beginnings
    • 3.1 Kulssey: Indexing uncertainty
    • 3.2 Kulenikka: Reshaping the constraints imposed by the question
  • 4.Comparing the two particles
  • 5.Comparing the particles to well
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 July 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.04kim
References (43)
References
Boyd, Elizabeth, and John Heritage. 2006. “Taking The Patientʹs Medical History: Questioning During Comprehensive History Taking” In Communication in Medical Care: Interactions between Primary Care Physicians and Patients, ed. by John Heritage, and Douglas Maynard, 151–184. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven, and John Heritage. 2002. The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Golato, Andrea, and Zsuzsanna Fagyal. 2008. “Comparing Single and Double Sayings of the German Response Token Ja and the Role of Prosody: A Conversation Analytic Perspective.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41 (3):1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto, and Shuya Kushida. 2010. “Responding with Resistance to Wh-Questions in Japanese Talk-in-interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 46 (3):231–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. “A Change of State Token and Aspects of Its Sequential Placement. In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1988. “Explanations as Accounts: A Conversation Analytic Perspective.” In Analyzing Lay Explanation: A Case Book of Methods, ed. by C. Antaki, 127–144. London, Sage.Google Scholar
. 1998. “Oh-Prefaced Responses to Inquiry.” Language in Society 27:291–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
, 2002a. “Oh-Prefaced Responses to Assessments: A Method of Modifying and Agreement/Disagreement.” In The Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Cecilia Ford, Barbara Fox, and Sandra Thompson, 196–224. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2002b. “Ad Hoc Inquiries: Two Preferences in the Design of Routine Questions in an Open Context.” In Standardization and Tacit Knowledge: Interaction and Practice in the Survey Interview, ed. by Douglas Maynard, Hanneke Houtkoop-Steenstra, Nora Cate Schaeffer, and Johannes Van der Zouwen, 313–334. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Questioning in Medicine.” In “Why Do You Ask?”: The functions of Questions in Institutional Discourse, ed. by Alice F. Freed, and Susan Ehrlich, 42–68. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
, 2012. “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (1):1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Turn-Initial Position and Some of Its Occupants.” Journal of Pragmatics 57:331–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Well-Prefaced Turns in English Conversation: A Conversation Analytic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 88: 88–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Steve Clayman. 2010. Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo. 2011. “The Terms of Not Knowing.” In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers, Lorena Mondada, and Jacob Steensig, 184–206, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Hye Ri Stephanie. 2010. “A High Boundary Tone as a Resource for a Social Action: The Korean Sentence-Ender –Ta.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (11):3055–3077. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Mary Shin. 2011. Negotiating epistemic Rights to Information in Korean Conversation: An examination of the Korean Evidential Marker –Tamye. Discourse Studies 13(4): 435–459. Google Scholar
Kim, Hye Ri Stephanie. 2013. “Reshaping the Response Space with ‘Kulenikka’ in Beginning to Respond to Questions in Korean Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 57:303–317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Hye Ri Stephanie, and Satomi Kuroshima. 2013. “Turn Beginnings in Interaction: An Introduction.” Journal of Pragmatics 57: 267–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Kyu-Hyun, and Kyung-Hee Suh. 1994. “The Discourse Connective Nikka in Korean Conversation.” In Japanese/Korean Linguistics Vol. 4, ed. by Noriko Akatsuka, 113–129. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
. 1996. “Dealing with Prior Talk: Discourse Connectives in Korean Conversation.” In Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Vol. 5, ed. by Noriko Akatsuka, Shoichi Iwasaki, and Susan Strauss, 83–99. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
. 2010. “’Ketun’ in Conversation: Soliciting News Receipt as Sequentially-Motivated Action.” In Japanese-Korean Linguistics, Vol. 17, ed. by Shoichi Iwasaki, Hajime Hoji, Patricia M. Clancy, and Sung-Ock Sohn, 423–438. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Kim, Mary Shin. 2005. “Evidentiality in Achieving Entitlement, Objectivity, and Detachment in Korean Conversation.” Discourse Studies 7 (1):87–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Stephanie Hyeri. 2015. “Resisting the Terms of Polar Questions through Ani (‘No’)-Prefacing in Korean Conversation.” Discourse Processes 52 (4):311–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “When Speakers Account for Their Questions: Ani-Prefaced Accounts in Korean Conversation.” In Accountability in Social Interaction, ed. by Jeffrey Robinson. New York: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Seung-Hee. 2015. “Two Forms of Affirmative Responses to Polar Questions.” Discourse Processes 52 (1):21–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noh, Jini. 2009. “The Deployment of Korean Negative Interrogatives in Conversational Discourse: A Sign-Based Approach.” In Japanese/Korean Linguistics Vol. 16, ed. by Yukinori Takubo, Tomohide Kinuhata, Szymon Grzelak, and Kayo Nagai, 304–318. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Oh, Sun-Young. 2007. “Overt Reference to Speaker and Recipient in Korean.” Discourse Studies 9 (4):462–492. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Park, Yong-Yae. 1999. “The Korean Connective Nuntey in Conversational Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics, 31: 191–218.Google Scholar
Park, Jiseon. 2009. “Pre-verbal Negation Yes/No Question-Answer Sequence in Conversation: Action Formation and Sequence Organization.” Linguistics [enehak] 30:75–105.Google Scholar
Park, Mee-jeong, and Sung-Ock Sohn. 2002. “Discourse, Grammaticalization, and Intonation: The Analysis of- Ketun in Korean.” In Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Vol. 10, ed. by Noriko Akatsuka, and Susan Strauss, 306–319. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” In Structures of Social Action, ed. by John Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2010. “Grammar and Social Relations: Alternative Forms of Yes/No Type Initiating Actions in Health Visitor Interaction.” In “Why Do You Ask?”: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse, ed. by Alice F. Freed, and Susan Ehrlich, 87–107. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1987. “On the Preference for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation.” In Talk and Social Organisation, ed. by Graham Button, and John R. E. Lee, 54–69. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel. 1987. “Recycled Turn Beginnings: A Precise Repair Mechanism In Conversationʹs Turn-Taking Organization.” In Talk and Social Organisation, ed. by Graham Button, and John R. E. Lee, 70–85. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
. 1996. “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Gene H. Lerner. 2009. “Beginning to Respond: “Well”-Prefaced Responses to Wh-Questions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 42 (2):91–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, Jack. 2009. Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sohn, Ho-Min. 1999. The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Song, Jae Jung. 2005. The Korean Language: Structure, Use and Context. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yoon, Kyung-Eun. 2010. “Questions and Responses in Korean Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (10):2782–2798. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Bolden, Galina B., John Heritage & Marja-Leena Sorjonen
2023. Chapter 1. Introduction. In Responding to Polar Questions across Languages and Contexts [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 35], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Hayano, Kaoru & Makoto Hayashi
2023. Chapter 9. Post-confirmation modifications. In Responding to Polar Questions across Languages and Contexts [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 35], ► pp. 272 ff. DOI logo
Kim, Stephanie Hyeri
2021. Teaching Discourse Markers that Mark Trouble With Questions: Applications of Conversation Analysis to Teaching Korean as a Second/Foreign Language. The Korean Language in America 24:1 ► pp. 83 ff. DOI logo
Kim, Stephanie Hyeri & Mary Shin Kim
2020. Chapter 2. Requesting here-and-now actions with two imperative formats in Korean interaction. In Mobilizing Others [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 33], ► pp. 19 ff. DOI logo
Persson, Rasmus
2020. Taking Issue with a Question While Answering It: Prefatory Particles and Multiple Sayings of Polar Response Tokens in French. Research on Language and Social Interaction 53:3 ► pp. 380 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 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.