Korean general extenders tunci ha and kena ha ‘or something’
Approximation, hedging, and pejorative stance in cross-linguistic comparison
Using natural conversation corpora, I demonstrate that the Korean x-
tunci ha ‘x-or do’ and
x-
kena ha ‘x-or do’, which originally list options (e.g., ‘x or y do’) have emerged as independent
constructions that can indicate approximation, epistemic uncertainty, tentativeness, and even polite hedging. I argue that these
Korean “general extenders” (
Overstreet 1999) followed a similar (inter)subjectification
process to English x-
or something and Japanese x-
tari suru ‘x-or do.’ I also illustrate how
these two Korean general extenders specialize in different hedging strategies.
Ironically, Korean
tunci ha and Japanese
tari suru can also convey a speaker’s
negative affective stance. I demonstrate that
tunci ha was frequently used in making non-imposing suggestions
(hedging) and obtained its negative affect in the context of suggesting an obvious but untried solution (i.e., the frustration of the suggesting speaker). This result differs from Suzuki
(2008)’s argument of the Japanese case
which attributes this development to a speaker’s non-committal attitude.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Previous studies on English or something and Japanese tari suru
- 3.Two Korean general extenders and their distributional skewing
- 4.
Tunci general extender
- 4.1Epistemic uncertainty and the tentativeness of a plan
- 4.2Polite hedging
- 4.2.1Propositional hedging
- 4.2.2Speech act hedging
- 4.3Speaker’s negative affective stance
- 4.3.1Criticizing attitude toward Others
- 4.3.2Pejorative stance toward the speaker’s own problems
- 5.
Kena general extender
- 5.1Vague category and epistemic uncertainty
- 5.2Qualification and propositional hedging with negation
- 6.Conclusion
- Notes
-
References
References (36)
References
Barsalou, L. 1983. “Ad hoc Categories.” Memory and Cognition 111: 211–227. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brems, L., Ghesquière, L. and Van de Velde, F. eds. 2014. Intersubjectivity and Inter-subjectification in Grammar and Discourse: Theoretical and Descriptive Advances. Vol. 651. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. 1999. Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bybee, J. L. 2006. “From usage to grammar: The mind’s Response to Repetition.” Language 82(4): 711–733. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bybee, J. L. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bybee, J. L., Revere, P. and Pagliuca, W. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Channell, J. 1994. Vague language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cheshire, J. 2007. “Discourse Variation, Grammaticalisation and Stuff like That.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 11(2): 155–193. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide; Spoken and Written English Grammar and Usage. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Sprachen.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cho, Y-M., Lee, H-S., Schulz, C., Sohn, H-M. and Sohn, S-O. 2012. Integrated Korean: Intermediate 1. 2nd edition. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dines, E. R. 1980. “Variation in Discourse – ‘and stuff like that’.” Language in Society 91: 13–33. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Drake, A. V. 2015. “Indexing Uncertainty: The Case of Turn-final or
.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 48(3): 301–318. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Erman, B. 1995. “Grammaticalization in Progress: The Case of or something
.” In Papers from the XVth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, ed. by Inger, M., Simonsen, HG. and Lødrup, H., 136–147. Oslo, Norway: Department of Linguistics, University of Oslo.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Evans, N. and Watanabe, H. eds. 2016. Insubordination (Vol. 1151). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fraser, B. 2010. “Pragmatic Competence: The Case of Hedging.” In New Approaches to Hedging, ed. by Kaltenböck, G., Mihatsch, W. and Schneider, S., 15–34. Emerald: Bingley. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hopper, P. J. and Traugott, E. C. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Itani, R. 1992. “Japanese Conjunction kedo ‘but’ in Utterance-final Use: A Relevance-based Analysis.” English Linguistics 91: 265–283. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jefferson, G. 1990. “List Construction as a Task and Resource.” In Interaction Competence ed. by Psathas, G., 63–92. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kim, M. 2015. “From Choice to Counter-expectation: Semantic-pragmatic Connections of the Korean Disjunctive, Concessive, and Scalar Focus Particle -na
,” Journal of Pragmatics 801: 1–21. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kim, M. 2018. “From Connective to Final Particle: Korean tunci “or” and Cross-Linguistic Comparisons,” Journal of Pragmatics 1351: 24–38. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lindström, A. 1997. Designing Social Actions: Grammar, Prosody, and Interaction in Swedish Conversation. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Overstreet, M. 1999. Whales, Candlelight, and Stuff like That: General Extenders in English Discourse, New York: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Overstreet, M. and Yule, G. 1997. “On Being Inexplicit and Stuff in Contemporary American English,” Journal of English Linguistics 251: 250–258. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Prince, E., Frader, J. and Bosk, C. 1982. “On Hedging in Physician-physician Discourse.” In Linguistics and the Professions. Proceedings of the Second Annual Delaware Symposium on Language Studies. ed. by Di Pietro, R. J., 83–97, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Suzuki, S. 2008. “Expressivity of Vagueness: Alienation in the verb-tari suru Construction.” Japanese Language and Literature 42(1):157–169.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tagliamonte, S. A. and Denis, D. 2010. “The Stuff of Change: General Extenders in Toronto, Canada.” Journal of English Linguistics 38(4):335–368. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, E. C. 2003. “From Subjectification to Intersubjectification.” In Motives for Language Change. ed. by Hickey, R. 124–139, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, E. C. 2010. “Revisiting Subjectification and Intersubjectification.” In Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization. ed. by Davidse, K., Vandelanotte, L. and Cuyckens, H. 29–70, Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, E. C. 2014. “Intersubjectification and Clause Periphery.” In Intersubjectivity and Intersubjectification in Grammar and Discourse: Theoretical and Descriptive Advances (Vol. 65). ed. by Brems, L., Ghesquière, L. and Van de Velde, F., 7–28, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, E. C. and Dasher, R. B. 2005. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Vaughan, E., McCarthy, M., and Clancy, B. 2017. “Vague Category Markers as Turn-final Items in Irish English.” World Englishes 36(2): 208–223. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Yeon, J. and Brown, L. 2011. Korean: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Takanashi, Hiroko
2023.
The utterance-finaltari siteconstruction in interaction: a general extender as a play stance marker.
Journal of Japanese Linguistics 39:1
► pp. 81 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Kim, Minju
2022.
Intersubjectivity, stance, and Korean general extenders.
Journal of Pragmatics 193
► pp. 253 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
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.