A corpus-based study on contrast and concessivity of the connective ‑ciman in Korean
Providing a corpus-based analysis of the contrastive connective -ciman in Korean, this study demonstrates that global connections are as frequent as local connections as opposed to previous literature. In representing various senses possible with a -ciman connection, this study adopts a fuzzy representation, where meanings range from conceptual to discoursal. The identified meanings include explicit contrast, denial of expectation, speech act hedges and idiomatic expressions. The fuzzy representation is supported for at least two reasons. First, categorization of some cases is often blurred. Second, it can better capture the relatedness of various meanings whose enduring sense concerns ‘contrast’. It is further revealed that interpretations of -ciman phrases are compositionally made with co-occurring linguistic units. The “pragmatic” meanings of -ciman constructions are explained in terms of different levels of representations in which the contrast occurs. We further investigate the possibility of -ciman as a stance/discourse marker with accompanying expressions.
Contrast consists of a range of phenomena cross-linguistically. Predominantly, these notions are realized by lexical devices such as the English words but or nevertheless. In addition to lexical methods, discourse contrast or concessivity can be achieved by use of a future tense in non-temporal use, especially in Romance languages (Baranzini and Mari 2019). Moreover, contrastive markers strongly resonate with epistemic modality, because contrastive markers can help the speaker distance herself from the propositional content. At the same time, contrast involves a series of arguments in which one point of view is presented in a provisional way, and then necessarily followed by a segment “advancing the opinion favored by the speaker” (Zafiu 2018, 117).
Baranzini, Laura, and Alda Mari
2019 “From Epistemic Modality to Concessivity: Alternatives and Pragmatic Reasoning per absurdum”. Journal of Pragmatics 142: 116–138.
Bell, D. M.
1998 “Cancellative Markers: A Core/Periphery Approach.” Pragmatics 8: 515–541.
1987Semantic Constrains in Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
1989 “Denial and Contrast: A Relevance Theoretic Analysis of But.” Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 15–38.
Brown, Penelope, and Stephan Levinson
1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carter, Ronald, and Michael McCarthy
2006Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1937Wulimalpon. [Korean Grammar]. Seoul: Top Publishing.
Dascal, Marcelo, and Katriel Tamar
1977 “Between Semantics and Pragmatics: The Two Types of ‘but’ – Hebrew ‘aval’ and ‘ela’.” Theoretical Linguistics 4: 143–172.
1990 “An Approach to Discourse Markers.” Journal of Pragmatics 14: 383–395.
1998 “Contrastive Discourse Markers in English.” In Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory, eds. by A. H. Jucker, and Y. Ziv, 301–326. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Gray, Bethany, and Douglas Biber
2014 “Stance Markers.” In Corpus Pragmatics, eds. by Karin Aijmer, and Christoph Rühlemann, 219–248. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1989Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Halliday, M. A., and R. Hasan
1976Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
1977Wuliyeysmalpon [Grammar of Old Korean]. Seoul: Saymmwunhwasa.
Helmer, Henrike, Silke Reineke, and Arnulf Deppermann
2016 “A Range of Uses of Negative Epistemic Constructions in German: ICH WEIß NICHT as a Resource for Dispreferred Actions.” Journal of Pragmatics 106: 97–114.
2005Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2009Representing Time: An Essay on Temporality and Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2016Meaning in Linguistic Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
1971 “If’s, and’s and but’s about Conjunction.” In Studies in Linguistic Semantics, eds. by C. Filmore, and D. Langenden, 114–149. New York: Holt, Reinhard and Winston. 114–149.
Lee, Huyca, and Conghuy Lee
1999Theyksuthu Pwunsekcek Kwuke Emiuy Yenkwu [A Text-Analytic Approach to Korean Endings]. Seoul: Hankwukmwunhwasa
2002 “Towards a New Typology of Connectives with Special Reference to Conjunction in English and Korean.” Journal of Pragmatics 34: 851–866.
2015 “A Corpus-Pragmatic Analysis of Wuli.” Discourse and Cognition 22(3): 59–78.
Lee, Hyo Sang
1991Tense, Aspect and Modality: A Discourse-Pragmatic Analysis of Verbal Suffix in Korean from a Typological Perspective. Ph.D. Dissertation, UCLA.