Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 31:3 (2014) ► pp.299–336

On the development of Korean SAY evidentials and their extended pragmatic functions

 | Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
 | Hong Kong Polytechnic University
This paper examines the development of five hearsay evidential markers in Korean, namely, tako, tamye, tamyense, tanun and tanta, and traces their extended pragmatic functions in discourse. We first identify their functions over time, from Middle Korean to Modern and Contemporary Korean, then quantitatively analyze the usage frequency of these functions, diachronically from the 16th century to the early 20th century using the UNICONC historical corpus, and synchronically in present-day Korean using the Sejong contemporary written and spoken corpus. From a pragmatic perspective, we examine how Korean speakers use these hearsay evidential markers to convey the interpersonal and intersubjective stances of interlocutors in natural conversations. Based on the differential rates of grammaticalization of these markers, and on their usage frequency, we also examine the relationship between evidentiality marking and finiteness; more specifically, we analyze the sequences and mechanisms of change whereby different types of non-finite evidential structures develop into finite evidential constructions. Our findings have broader theoretical and crosslinguistic implications for understanding the mechanisms of insubordination, whereby dependent structures become independent, and whereby lexically transparent constructions develop into grammaticalized markers of speakers’ stance.
Keywords: hearsay evidential markers, epistemic strength, phonological reduction, diachronic corpus analysis, finiteness, verbal elision, main-clause ellipsis, insubordination
Published online: 14 November 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.31.3.01ahn
References (80)
Ahn, Ju-Ho. 2006. A studying of connecting ending -meyenseo in Korean. Studies in Modern Grammar 451. 179–198.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & Robert M.W. Dixon. 2003. Studies in evidentiality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & Randy J. LaPolla. 2007. New perspectives on evidentials: A view from Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 30(2). 1–16.Google Scholar
Anderson, Lloyd B. 1986. Evidentials, paths of change and mental maps: Typologically regular asymmetries. In Wallace L. Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 273–312. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bisang, Walter 2007. Categories that make finiteness: Discreteness from a functional perspective and some of its repercussions. In Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations, 115–137. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen Levinson. 1987. Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Esther N. Goody (ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction, 256–289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. & Johanna Nichols (eds.). 1986. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chang, Miao-Hsia. 1998. The discourse functions of Taiwanese kong in relation to its grammaticalization. In Huang Shuanfan (ed.), Selected papers from the Second International Symposium on Languages in Taiwan, 111–127. Taipei: Crane Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Chappell, Hilary. 2008. Variation in the grammaticalization of complementizers from verba dicendi in Sinitic languages. Linguistic Typology 12(1). 45–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chung, Kyung-Sook. 2006. Korean evidentials and assertion. In Donald Baumer, David Montero & Michael Scanlon (eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 105–113. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Chui, Kawai. 1994. Grammaticalization of the saying verb wa in Cantonese. Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics 51. 1–13.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 331. 369–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1996. Focus, pragmatic presupposition, and activated propositions. Journal of Pragmatics 261. 475–523. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ekberg, Lena & Carita Paradis. 2009. Editorial: Evidentiality in language and cognition. Functions of Language 16(1). 5–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckardt, Regine. 2006. Meaning change in grammaticalization: An enquiry into semantic reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations, 366–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Faller, Martina. 2002. Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Stanford: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. 2001. Evidentiality: Authority, responsibility, and entitlement in English conversation. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 11(2). 167–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gipper, Sonja. 2011. Evidentiality and intersubjectivity in Yurakará: An interactional account. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institut für Psycholinguistik.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Lewis. R. 1981. Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. In Alan Wheeler (ed.), Review of personality and social psychology 11, 141–165. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Güldemann, Tom. 2008. Quotative indexes in African languages: A synchronic and diachronic survey. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grunow-Hårsta, Karen. 2011. Innovation in nominalization in Magar, a Tibeto-Burman language of Nepal. In Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds.), Nominalization in Asian languages: Asian perspectives (Typological Studies in Language 96), 215–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Güldemann, Tom & Manfred von Roncador. 2002. Reported discourse: A meeting ground for different linguistic domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard & Jacqueline Visconti. 2007. On the diachrony of reinforced negation in French and Italian. In Corinne Rossari, Claudia Ricci & Adriana Spiridon (eds.), Grammaticalization and pragmatics: Facts, approaches, theoretical issues, 137–171. Bingley, UK: Emerald.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd &Tania Kuteva. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. From cognition to grammar: Evidence from African languages. In Elizabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 11, 149–187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill, Jane & Judith Irvine (eds.). 1993. Responsibility and evidence in oral discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horie, Kaoru. 2012. The convergence of stance-related functions of nominalization in Modern Japanese. Paper presented at the Workshop on Stance and Discourse: Discourse Perspectives, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, May 7-9.
Hsieh, Fuhui. 2012. On the grammaticalization of the Kavalan SAY verb zin . Oceanic Linguistics 51(2). 467–492. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jeon, Hye-Young. 1996. On pragmatic functions of ‘-tako’-ending repercussive question. Korean Journal of Linguistics 21(3). 889–911.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars & Bo Utas. 2000. Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Mary Shin. 2006. Evidential strategies in Korean conversation: An analysis of interactional and conversational narrative functions. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2011. Negotiating epistemic rights to information in Korean conversation: An examination of the Korean evidential marker -tamye . Discourse Studies 13(4). 435–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Minju. 2011. Grammaticalization in Korean: The evolution of the existential verb. London: Saffron Books.Google Scholar
Kim, Su Tae. 2005. Machimpep Ssikkutyuy Yunghapkwa Ku Hankyey [Fusion of sentential endings and its limit] . Seoul: Pakiceng Publishing.Google Scholar
Konoshima, Masatoshi. 1973. Kokugo Joshi no Kenkyuu [A study of particles in Japanese] . Tokyo: Oofuusha.Google Scholar
Kwon, Iksoo. 2009. The Korean evidential marker -te- revisited: Its semantic constraints and distancing effects. Paper presented at the Discourse Cognitive Linguistics Society of Korea Conference, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, June 20.
Larrivée, Pierre. 2011. The role of pragmatics in grammatical change: The case of French preverbal non . Journal of Pragmatics 431. 1987–1996. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Jungmee. 2010. The Korean evidential -te: A modal analysis. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 81. 287–311.Google Scholar
Lee, Keum-Hee. 2006. Grammaticalization of quotation constructions: On the process and degree of grammaticalization. Kwukehak [Korean Lingustics] 481. 233–258.Google Scholar
Leung, Wai-mun. 2006. On the synchrony and diachrony of sentence final particles: The case of wo in Cantonese. Pokfulam, HK: University of Hong Kong dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2009. A study of the Cantonese hearsay particle wo from a tonal perspective. International Journal of Linguistics 1(1). 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lim, Dongsik. 2010. Evidentials and interrogatives: A case study from Korean. Los Angeles: University of Southern California dissertation.Google Scholar
Matthews, Stephen. 1998. Evidentiality and mirativity in Cantonese: wo3, wo4, wo5! Proceedings of the International Symposium on Chinese Languages and Linguistics. 325–334. Academica Sinica.
Michael, Lev. 2008. Nanti evidential practice: Language, knowledge, and social action in an Amazonian society. Austin: University of Texas at Austin dissertation.Google Scholar
Miura, Akira. 1974. ‘To’ to ‘tte’ [To and tte]. Nihonggo Kyooiku [Japanese Language Education] 241. 23–28.Google Scholar
Nam, Mi-jeong. 2010. The formation and meaning of an ending “-dago” and its kind. Hanmalyenku [Studies on Korean Language] 261. 109–131.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2010. Typology of finiteness. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(12). 1176–1189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 1997. Versatile nominalizations. In Joan Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Essays on language function and language type: Dedicated to T. Givón, 373–394. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2001. Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics 331. 383–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Park, Jinho. 2008. ‘tako’ lyu emiey tayhan hwayongloncek cepkun [Sentential ending ‘tako’ from a pragmatic approach]. Yeysan Hakpo [Yeysan Studies] 241. 171–194.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha. 2008a. Ellipsis and functional shifts. Studies in Modern Grammar 521. 169–194.Google Scholar
. 2008b. On the rise and fall of Korean nominalizers. In María José López-Couso & Elena Seoane (eds.), Rethinking grammaticalization: New perspectives (Typological Studies in Language 76), 239–264. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Analogy-driven grammaticalization: A case of grammaticalization of sentence-final markers from concomitance-connectives. Paper presented at the 9th Biennial Conference of the Association for Linguistic Typology , University of Hong Kong, July 22.
Rudolph, Dina. 1993. Getting past politeness: The role of linguistic markers of evidentiality and informational domains in Japanese student-teacher interactions at the graduate level. Los Angeles: University of Southern California dissertation.Google Scholar
Saegusa, Reiko. 1997. Syntax of tte . Gengo Bunka 341. 21–34.Google Scholar
Schwenter, Scott A. 2006. Fine-tuning Jespersen’s cycle. In Betty J. Birner & Gregory Ward (eds.), Drawing the boundaries of meaning: Neo-Gricean studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn, 327–344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shi, Chung-kon & Keon-hee Kim. 2011. The modal inquiry into the construction of bound noun + -ida . Emwunyenkwu [Korean Sentence Structure Studies] 681. 79–102.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1990. The languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shin, Mi Kyong. 2005. Development of nominalizers in some East Asian languages. Shatin: The Chinese University of Hong Kong MA thesis. Google Scholar
Sohn, Sung-Ock. 2011. Historical development of quotative constructions in Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 181. 126–143.Google Scholar
. 2012. Development of stance markers in Korean: Diachronic and discourse perspectives. Paper presented at the Tutorial on Discourse Analysis (Workshop on Epistemicity, Evidentiality and Attitude), Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Sept 2.
Su, Lily I-wen. 2004. Subjectification and the use of the complementizer SHUO. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 30(1). 19–40.Google Scholar
Sun, Tianshin Jackson. 1993. Evidentials in Amdo Tibetan. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 63(64). 945–1001.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Satoko. 1999. Marker of unexpected statements: An analysis of the quotative particle datte . Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese 33(1). 44–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tamaji, Mizuho & Foong Ha Yap. Manuscript. On the role of phonological change and ellipsis in the development of evidential and pragmatic markers: Diachronic evidence from converbal ‘say’ constructions in Japanese. Department of Chinese and Bilingual Studies and Department of English, Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
Wang, Yu-Fang, Aya Katz & Chih-Hua Chen. 2003. Thinking as saying: Shuo (‘say’) in Taiwan Mandarin conversation and BBS talk. Language Sciences 25(5). 457‒488. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watters, David. 2008. Nominalization in Kiranti and the Central Himalayish languages of Nepal. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 31(2). 1–43.Google Scholar
Willett, Thomas. 1988. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 121. 51–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yap, Foong Ha & Mikyung Ahn. 2011. Evidentiality and counterexpectation marking strategies in Cantonese and Korean. Paper presented at the Workshop on Evidentiality and Mood, Seoul National University, October 19.
Yap, Foong Ha, Karen Grunow-Härsta & Janick Wrona (eds.). 2011. Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives (Typological Studies in Language 96). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yap, Foong Ha & Stephen Matthews. 2008. The development of nominalizers in East Asian and Tibeto-Burman languages. In María José López-Couso & Elena Seoane (eds.), Rethinking grammaticalization: New perspectives (Typological Studies in Language 76), 309–341. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yap, Foong Ha, Ying Yang & Tak-sum Wong. Forthcoming. On the development of sentence final particles (and utterance tags) in Chinese. In Kate Beeching & Ulrich Detges (eds.), Asymmetrical functions at the left and right periphery. Leiden: Brill. DOI logo
Yeung, Ka-Wai. 2006. On the status of the complementizer waa6 in Cantonese. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 4(1). 1–48.Google Scholar
Yu, Hyeon Gyeong. 2002. Emi ‘-tako’ uymiwa yongpep [The meaning and usage of particle tako]. Paytalmal [Ethnic Korean] 311. 99–122.Google Scholar
Yuzawa, Kookichiroo. 1954. Edokotoba no Kenkyuu [A study of language in the Edo period] . Tokyo: Meijishoin.Google Scholar
Cited by (10)

Cited by ten other publications

Ahn, Mikyung & Foong Ha Yap
2022. On the extended uses of -ki and -m nominalization constructions as face-threat mitigators in Korean. Lingua 274 ► pp. 103230 ff. DOI logo
Ahn, Mikyung & Foong Ha Yap
2015. Evidentiality in interaction. Studies in Language 39:1 ► pp. 46 ff. DOI logo
Tamaji, Mizuho
2022. Development of ‘say’-derived constructions. Language and Linguistics. 語言暨語言學 ► pp. 296 ff. DOI logo
Kalt, Susan E.
2021. Acquisition, Loss and Innovation in Chuquisaca Quechua—What Happened to Evidential Marking?. Languages 6:2 ► pp. 76 ff. DOI logo
Gipper, Sonja & Foong Ha Yap
2019. Chapter 9. Life of =ti: Use and grammaticalization of a clausal nominalizer in Yurakaré. In Nominalization in Languages of the Americas [Typological Studies in Language, 124], ► pp. 363 ff. DOI logo
Ahn, Mikyung
2016. Emotion in interaction. Studies in Language 40:4 ► pp. 872 ff. DOI logo
Iwasaki, Shoichi & Foong Ha Yap
2015. Stance-marking and stance-taking in Asian languages. Journal of Pragmatics 83 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Kim, Mary Shin
2015. Stancetaking in the face of incongruity in Korean conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 83 ► pp. 57 ff. DOI logo
Rhee, Seongha
2015. On the emergence of Korean markers of agreement. Journal of Pragmatics 83 ► pp. 10 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2019. Complex Clauses. In Korean Syntax and Semantics, ► pp. 223 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 august 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.