Cover not available
Article published In:
Korean Linguistics
Vol. 18:1 (2022) ► pp.48–75

Discourse functions of Korean ‘yes’ words

| The Ohio State University
| University of Maryland, Baltimore County
This study examines discourse functions of Korean ‘yes’ words from an interactional perspective based on naturally-occurring conversation data. Tokens of yey, ney, ey, ung, um, and e in Korean are widely recognized as affirmative responses. A close examination of these tokens, however, reveals wide-ranging interactional functions through which speakers express active engagement, share information, negotiate meaning, and maintain discourse coherence. The present study identifies a total of fifteen discourse-pragmatic functions of Korean ‘yes’ words: (1) affirmative answer, (2) confirmation, (3) acceptance, (4) agreement, (5) answer to summons, (6) acknowledgement, (7) change-of-state, (8) change-of-activity, (9) response solicitation, (10) reinforcement, (11) other initiation of repair, (12) closing of phone call, (13) continuer, (14) proposal to discontinue the on-going action for the sake of a larger course of action, and (15) arguably hesitation marker. This study demonstrates that the interactional approach enables the discovery of varied discourse functions of a type of linguistic items, which may not be readily available in dictionaries or grammar reference guides.
Keywords: Korean, Korean yes, discourse marker, discourse functions, interactional approach
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 3.The data
  • 4.Discourse functions of Korean ‘yes’ tokens
    • 4.1Affirmative answer to a ‘yes/no’ question
    • 4.2Confirmation
    • 4.3Acceptance of offer, suggestion, or request
    • 4.4Agreement
    • 4.5Answer to a summons
    • 4.6Acknowledgement
    • 4.7Change-of-state
    • 4.8Change-of-activity
    • 4.9Response solicitation
    • 4.10Reinforcement
    • 4.11Other-initiation of repair
    • 4.12Closing of phone call
    • 4.13Continuer
    • 4.14Proposal to discontinue the on-going action for the sake of a larger course of action
    • 4.15Hesitation marker
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Closing remarks
  • Acknowledgment
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations used in the interlinear gloss
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 28 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/kl.00013.pyu
References (39)
References
Angles, Jeffrey, Ayumi Nagatomi, & Mineharu Nakayama. 2000. Japanese responses hai, ee, and un : Yes, no, and beyond. Language and Communication 201: 55–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beach, Wayne A. 1993. Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “okay” usage. Journal of Pragmatics 191: 325–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995a. Conversation analysis: “okay” as a clue for understanding consequentiality. In The Consequentiality of Communication, ed. Stuart Sigman, 121–161. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 121–161.Google Scholar
1995b. Preserving and constraining options: “okays” and ‘official’ priorities in medical interviews. In The talk of the clinic: Explorations in the analysis of medical and therapeutic discourse, ed. George H. Morris and Ronald J. Cheneil, 259–289. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Cho, Young-mee, Hyo Sang Lee, Carol Schulz, Ho-min Sohn & Sung-Ock Sohn. 2009. Integrated Korean: Beginning 1. 2nd ed. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
. 2012. Integrated Korean: Intermediate 1. 2nd ed. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Drummond, Kent & Robert Hopper. 1993. Back channels revisited: Acknowledgement tokens and speakership incipiency. Research on Language and Social Interaction 26 (2): 157–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia & Johannes Wagner. 1996. Interaction-based studies of language: Introduction. Pragmatics 6 (3): 277–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardner, Rod. 2001. When listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givon, Talmy. 1979. From discourse to syntax: grammar as a processing strategy. In Syntax and semantics. Vol. 12: Discourse and syntax, ed. Talmy Givon, 81–112. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. J. Maxwell Atkinson and John C. Heritage, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1979. Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In Syntax and semantics. Vol. 12: Discourse and syntax, ed. Talmy Givon, 213–241. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1988. Emergent grammar and the a priori grammar postulate. In Linguistics in Contact, ed. Deborah Tannen, 117–134. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56 (2): 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1984. The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language 60 (4): 703–751. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1984. Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowlegement tokens yeah and mm hm. Papers in Linguistics 171: 197–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Kyu-hyun. 1993. Other-initiated repair sequences in Korean conversation as interactional resources. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 3, ed. Soonja Choi, 3–18. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
. 1999. Phrasal unit boundaries and organization of turns and sequences in Korean conversation. Human Studies 221: 425–446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Kyu-Hyun & Kyung-Hee Suh. 1998. Confirmation sequences as interactional resources in Korean language proficiency interviews. In Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency, ed. Richard Young and Agnes W. He, 297–332. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kitagawa, Chisato. 1980. Saying ‘yes’ in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 105–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson. ed. 1996. Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, ed. J. Maxwell Atkinson and John C. Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Language 501: 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1982. Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk, ed. Deborah Tannen, 71–93. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
2000. When ‘others’ initiate repair. Applied Linguistics 21 (2): 205–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis, Volume 11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Harvey Sacks. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 71: 289–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson & Harvey Sacks. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 531: 361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margaret & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2001. Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sohn, H.-M. 1999. The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 1996. On repeats and responses in Finnish conversations. In Interaction and grammar, ed. Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra Thompson, 277–327. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2004. No no no and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. Human Communication Research 30 (2): 260–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Elizabethe Couper-Kuhlen. 2005. The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies 7 (4–5): 481–505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wouk, Fay. 2001. Solidarity in Indonesian conversation: The discourse marker ya . Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2): 171–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yoon, Kyung-Eun. 2010. Questions and responses in Korean conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 421: 2782–2798. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, Don H. 1993. Acknowledgement tokens and speakership incipiency revisited. Research on Language and Social Interaction 26 (2): 179–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Choe, Hanwool
2024. “할미 마음이 아파요”: Korean Honorific Speech Level Markers as Contextualization Cues in Family Instant Messages. In Exploring Korean Politeness Across Online and Offline Interactions [Advances in (Im)politeness Studies, ], ► pp. 35 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.