Chapter published in:
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

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
Published online: 19 July 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.04kim
References

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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven, and John Heritage
2002 The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 “Turn-Initial Position and Some of Its Occupants.” Journal of Pragmatics 57:331–337. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 “Well-Prefaced Turns in English Conversation: A Conversation Analytic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 88: 88–104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Steve Clayman
2010 Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Hye Ri Stephanie, and Satomi Kuroshima
2013 “Turn Beginnings in Interaction: An Introduction.” Journal of Pragmatics 57: 267–273. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Stephanie Hyeri
2015 “Resisting the Terms of Polar Questions through Ani (‘No’)-Prefacing in Korean Conversation.” Discourse Processes 52 (4):311–334. CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Seung-Hee
2015 “Two Forms of Affirmative Responses to Polar Questions.” Discourse Processes 52 (1):21–46. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, Jack
2009 Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yoon, Kyung-Eun
2010 “Questions and Responses in Korean Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (10):2782–2798. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Kim, Stephanie Hyeri & Mary Shin Kim
2020.  In Mobilizing Others [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 33], ► pp. 19 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 05 april 2021. 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.