Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 39:1 (2015) ► pp.46–84

Evidentiality in interaction

A pragmatic analysis of Korean hearsay evidential markers

This paper examines how hearsay evidential markers in Korean are used within the pragmatic domain to serve a wide range of epistemic and politeness functions. In particular, we focus on a new paradigm of hearsay evidential markers — more specifically, the V-ta ha-X > V-ta-X type, among them -tako, -tamye, -tamyense, -tanun, and -tanta (see Ahn & Yap 2014) — and using data from the Sejong Contemporary Spoken Corpus, we examine the extended uses of these hearsay evidential markers in natural conversations, and show how these ‘say’-derived evidential markers contribute to the expression of different shades of speaker stance. Special attention is also given to their distinctive roles in modulating the strength — as well as pragmatic nuance — of an epistemic claim. This study also examines the role of main-clause ellipsis, in particular its contribution to the reanalysis of the (quoted) complement clause as a stand-alone ‘new main clause’, and the concomitant reinterpretation of the erstwhile ha ‘say’ complement-taking matrix clause as a sentence final particle that often retains an evidential reading but also captures the pragmatic nuance of its discourse context. The findings of this study contribute to a fuller understanding of how ‘say’-derived evidential constructions in Korean (and potentially also in other languages) extend their semantic scope to develop into markers of speakers’ subjective and intersubjective/interpersonal stance.
Keywords: attributive evidential, hearsay evidential marker, epistemic stance, conclusive evidential, impersonal and distancing effect, solidarity-enhancing effect, insubordination, main-clause ellipsis
Published online: 15 June 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.39.1.03ahn
References (105)
Ahn, J. 2006. A studying of connecting ending, ‘-myenseo’ 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. & R.M.W. Dixon. 1998. Evidentials and areal typology: A case study from Amazonia. Language Sciences 201. 241–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, A.Y. & R.M.W. Dixon. 2003. Studies in evidentiality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, A.Y. & R.J. LaPolla. 2007. New perspectives on evidentials: A view from Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 30(2). 1–12.Google Scholar
Aksu-Koç, A. 1988. The acquisition of aspect and modality. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ball, J.D. 1888. Cantonese made easy: A book on simple sentences in the Canton Dialect, 2nd edn. Hong Kong: China Mail Office.Google Scholar
Bisang, W. 2007. Categories that make finiteness: Discreteness from a functional perspective and some of its repercussions. In Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations, I. Nikolaeva (ed.), 115–137. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and S. Levinson. 1987. Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E.N. Goody (ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction, 256–289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. & J. Nichols (eds.), 1986. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chang, M. 1998. The discourse functions of Taiwanese kong in relation to its grammaticalization. In S-F., Huang (ed.), Selected papers from the Second International Symposium on Languages in Taiwan, 111–127. Taipei: Crane Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Chao, Y.R. 1947 [1969]. Cantonese primer. New York: Greenwood Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chappell, H. 2008. Variation in the grammaticalization of complementizers from verba dicendi in Sinitic languages. Linguistic Typology 121. 45–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chui, K., 1994. Grammaticalization of the saying verb wa in Cantonese. Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics 51: 1–13.Google Scholar
Chung, K. 2007. Spatial deictic tense and evidentials in Korean. Natural Language Semantics 15(3).187–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Korean evidentials and assertion. Lingua 1201. 932–952. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, S. 1985. Lhasa Tibetan evidentials and the semantics of causation. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society , 65–72.
. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 331. 369–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Finite structures from clausal nominalization in Tibeto-Burman. In F.H. Yap, K. Grunow-Hårsta & J. Wrona (eds.), Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives, 343–360. Amsterdam: John Benjamins DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Still mirative after all these years. Linguistic Typology 16(3).529–564.Google Scholar
Eckardt, R. 2006. Meaning change in grammaticalization: An enquiry into semantic reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007 (ed.). Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, N. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In I. Nikolaeva (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations, 366–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Everett, D. 2008. Wari’ intentional state constructions. In R.D. Van Valin, Jr. (ed.), Investigations of the syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface, 381–409. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faller, M. 2003. Propositional- and illocutionary-level evidentiality in Cuzco Quechua. In J. Anderssen, P. Menéndez-Benito & A. Werle (eds.), Proceedings of SULA 2, Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 19–33.Google Scholar
Fox, B.A. 2001. Evidentiality: Authority, responsibility, and entitlement in English conversation. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 11(2). 167–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gipper, S. 2011. Evidentiality and intersubjectivity in Yurakaré: An interactional account. Nijmegen: Radboud Universiteit dissertation.Google Scholar
Goldberg, L.R. 1981. Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. In L. Wheeler (ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology vol. 21, 141–165. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Gopnik, A. & J.W. Astington. 1988. Children’s understanding of representational change and its relation to the understanding of false-belief and the appearance-reality distinction. Child Development 591. 26–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Güldemann, T. 2008. Quotative indexes in African languages: A synchronic and diachronic survey. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 34. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grunow-Hårsta, K. 2011. Innovation in nominalization in Magar: A Tibeto-Burman language of Nepal. In F.H. Yap, K. Grunow-Hårsta & J. Wrona (eds.), Nominalization in Asian Languages: Diachronic and Typological Perspectives, 215–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Han, W. & D. Shi. 2012. Syntactic position and function of ‘hika’ in Shanghainese, paper presented at the 16th Annual Conference of Chinese Linguistic Society, August 2012. Yunnan: Yunnan University.
. 2013. The grammaticalization of modal particles in Shanghainese. Paper presented at the 20th International Conference of Cognitive Linguistics, University of Alberta, June 23-28.
Hengeveld, K. & M. Mattos Dall’Aglio Hattnher. Forthcoming. Four types of evidentiality in the native languages of Brazil. [URL] DOI logo
Higashiizumi, Y. 2006. From a subordinate clause to an independent clause. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo Publishing.Google Scholar
Hill, J. & J. Irvine. 1993. Introduction. In Jane Hill & Judith Irvine (eds.), Responsibility and evidence in oral discourse, 1–23. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B. & T. Kuteva. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P.J. & E.C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horie, K. 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, F. 2012. On the grammaticalization of the Kavalan SAY verb zin . Oceanic Linguistics 51(2). 467–492. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iwasaki, S. 1993. The structure of intonation unit in Japanese. Japanese/Korean Linguistics. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Jang, G.H. 2012. A study on the meaning of the final endings oriented from the connective endings-focus on the discourse-semantical functions of ‘-go’ and ‘-neunde’. Korean Semantics 381: 109–134.Google Scholar
Jeong, J. 2013. A study of syntactic structures and discourse functions of –ko(yo) functioning as final endings. Discourse and Cognition 20(1). 183–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johanson, L. & B. Utas (eds.). 2000. Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and neighboring languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kamio, A. 1990. Zyoohoo no nawabari riron: Gengo no kinooteki bunseki [ The theory of territory of information: A functional analysis of language ]. University of Tsukuba dissertation.Google Scholar
. 1994. The theory of territory of information: The case of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 21 (1). 67–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997a. Territory of information. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997b. Evidentiality and some discourse characteristics in Japanese. In A. Kamio (ed.), Directions in Functional Linguistics, 145–171. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, M.J. 2011. Grammaticalization in Korean: The evolution of the existential verb. London: Saffron Books (in conjunction with the Centre for Korean Studies, SOAS).Google Scholar
Kim, M.S. 2005. Evidentiality in achieving entitlement, objectivity, and detachment in Korean conversation. Discourse Studies 7(1). 87–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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, N. 2001. Reportative evidential in Korean. Journal of the International Circle of Korean Linguistics 101. 105–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Konoshima, M. 1973. Kokugo Joshi no Kenkyuu [A study of particle in Japanese]. Tokyo: Oofuusha.Google Scholar
Kwon, I. 2012. Please confirm what I inferred: On the Korean evidential marker -napo-. Journal of Pragmatics 441. 958–969. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, R.J. 2000. Review of A grammar of Meithei (Mouton Grammar Library 17), by Shobhana L. Chelliah. Lingua 110(4). 299–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. 2010. The Korean evidential –te: a modal analysis. In O. Bonami & P.C. Hofherr (eds.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 8, 287–311.Google Scholar
Lee, S. 2011. An analysis of the declarative ending -tanta on its derivational process and its semantic function. The Study of Korean Language and Literature 391. 209–239.Google Scholar
Leung, W-M. 2006. On the synchrony and diachrony of sentence-final particles: The Case of wo in Cantonese. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong dissertation. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leung, W. 2009. A study of the Cantonese hearsay particle wo from a tonal perspective. International Journal of Linguistics 1(1). E1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lim, D. 2010. Evidentials and Interrogatives: A Case Study from Korean. University of Southern California dissertation.Google Scholar
Lim, D. and C. Lee. 2012. Perspective shifts in Korean evidentials and the effect of contexts. Proceedings of SALT 221: 26–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loughnane, R. 2005. Reported speech constructions in Golin. In N. Evans, J. Besold, H. Stoakes & A. Lee (eds.), Materials on Golin: Grammar, texts and dictionary, 131–152. Melbourne: Department of Linguistics and Applied Lingustics, University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Matthews, S. 1998. Evidentiality and mirativity in Cantonese: wo3, wo4, wo5 . In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Chinese Languages and Linguistics , 325–334
McGregor, W.B. 1994. The grammar of reported speech and thought in Gooniyandi. Australian Journal of Linguistics 14(1). 63–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miura, A. 1974. ‘To’ to ‘tte’ [ To and tte ]. Nihonggo Kyooiku [Japanese Language Education] 241. 23–28.Google Scholar
Morrison, R. 1828 [2001]. Vocabulary of the Canton Dialect. London: Ganesha Publishing Limited. [First ed. published in Macao: East India Company’s Press.Google Scholar
Mushin, I. 2001. Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nam, M. 2010. The formation and meaning of an ending “-dago” and its kind. Hanmalyenku [Studies on Korean Language] 261. 109–131.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, I. 2010. Typology of finiteness. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(12). 1176–1189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, J. 2001. Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics 331. 383–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohori, T. 1995. Remarks on suspended clauses: A contribution to Japanese phraseology. In M. Shibatani and S.A. Thompson (eds.), Essays on Semantics and Pragmatics, 201‐218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, F.R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Park, N. 2004. A Suggestion for the Description of the Sentence Ending Forms in Korean Grammar for Foreign Learners -focusing on the pragmatic meanings of “-eo”, “-ne”, “-chi”, “-da”, “-kuna”, “-danda.”. Bilingualism 261. 91–116.Google Scholar
Park N. 2013. A study on descriptions of contraction form ‘-dani’ in KFL grammar. Bilingual Research 511: 45–80.Google Scholar
Rhee, S. 2012. Context-induced reinterpretation and (inter)subjectification: The case of grammaticalization of sentence-final particles. Language Sciences 34(3). 284–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rudolph, D. 1993. Getting past politeness: The role of linguistic markers of evidentiality and informational domains in Japanese student-teacher interactions at the graduate level. University of Southern California dissertation.Google Scholar
Saegusa, R. 1997. Tte no taikei (Syntax of tte). Gengo Bunka [Language and Culture] 341: 21–34.Google Scholar
Saxena, A. 1988. On syntactic convergence: the case of the verb ‘say’ in Tibeto-Burman. In Berkeley Linguistics Society: proceedings of the fourteenth annual meeting, February 13–15, 1988. Berkeley, Calif, edited by Shelley Axmaker et al. 375–388.Google Scholar
Shinzato, R. 2015. Two types of conditionals and two grammaticalization pathways. In Sylvie Hancil (ed.), Sentence Final Particles. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter 157–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sohn, H.M. 1994. Korean. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 1999. The Korean Language. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sohn, S. 2011. Historical development of quotative constructions in Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 181. 126–143.Google Scholar
Song, J.M. 1998. Anmaycumssikkuth ‘-te-’uy uymi kinungey tayhaye: Yuhyengloncek kwancemeyse [On the semantic function of the pre-final ending -te-: From a typological perspective]. Kwukehak [Korean Linguistics] 321. 135–169.Google Scholar
. 2002. Evidential marker -deo- in Korean: From a typological perspective. In Hee-Don Ahn & Namkil Kim (eds.), Selected papers from the Twelfth International Conference on Korean Linguistics, 457–470. Seoul: Gyungjin Publishing.Google Scholar
Su, L.I. 2004. Subjectification and the use of the complementizer SHUO. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 30(1). 19‒40.Google Scholar
Sun, T.J. 1993. Evidentials in Amdo Tibetan. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology (63-641). 945–1001.Google Scholar
Suzuki. S. 1998. Tte and nante: Markers of psychological distance in Japanese conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 291. 429–462. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, S. 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, M. & F.H. Yap. 2013a. Where does pragmatic marker tte come from? — Convergence of to ifute, to itte and tote constructions in the diachronic development of ‘say’ constructions in Japanese. Paper presented at the 15th Annual International Conference of the Japanese Society for Language Sciences (JSLS 2013), Nagasaki, June 28-30.
. 2013b. On the emergence of finite structures from non-finite constructions: Evidence from ‘say’ constructions n Japanese. Paper presented at the 10th Biennual Meeting of the Association for Linguistic Typology (ALT-9), University of Leipzig, August 15-18.
Trent, N. 1997. Linguistic coding of evidentiality in Japanese spoken discourse and Japanese politeness. Austin: University of Texas at Austin dissertation.Google Scholar
van der Voort, H. 2002. The quotative construction in Kwaza and its (de-)grammaticalisation. In M. Crevels, S. van de Kerke, S. Meira & H. van der Voort (eds.), Current Studies on South American Languages: Indigenous Languages of Latin America 31, 307–328.Google Scholar
Wang, Y., A. Katz & Z. Chen. 2003. Thinking as saying: Shuo (‘say’) in Taiwan Mandarin conversation and BBS talk. Language Sciences 25(5). 457–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willett, T.L. 1988. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 121. 51–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wimmer, H. & J. Perner. 1983. Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition 131. 103–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yap, F.H. & M. 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, F.H., K. Grunow-Harsta & J. Wrona (eds.). 2011. Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives. Typological Studies in Language 96. 1–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yap, F.H., Y. Yang & T.-S. Wong. 2014. On the development of sentence final particles (and utterance tags) in Chinese. In K. Beeching & U. Detges (eds.), Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change (Studies in Pragmatics 12). Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yeung, K. 2006. On the status of the complementizer waa6 in Cantonese. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 4(1). 1–48.Google Scholar
Yuzawa, K. 1954. Edokotoba no Kenkyuu [A Study of Language in the Edo Period]. Tokyo: Meijishoin.Google Scholar
Cited by (16)

Cited by 16 other publications

Tanangkingsing, Michael
2024. The marking of weak stance in Cebuano: The case of the versatile demonstrative kanάng. Journal of Pragmatics 230 ► pp. 89 ff. DOI logo
Zhao, Xin & Yansheng Mao
2023. If I testify about others, my testimony is valid. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 33:4 ► pp. 641 ff. DOI logo
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
2020. “That being so, but …”: An analysis of Korean kunyang as a marker of speaker's attenuated divergent stance. Journal of Pragmatics 160 ► pp. 31 ff. DOI logo
González Vázquez, Mercedes
2022. Unhas notas sobre o sistema evidencial galego. Estudos de Lingüística Galega ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
González-Vázquez, Mercedes
2021. The evidentiality system in Galician and the seica marker. Journal of Pragmatics 178 ► pp. 83 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
Kuteva, Tania, Bernd Heine, Bo Hong, Haiping Long, Heiko Narrog & Seongha Rhee
2019. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization, DOI logo
Arús-Hita, Jorge, Kazuhiro Teruya, Mohamed Ali Bardi, Abhishek Kumar Kashyap & Isaac N. Mwinlaaru
2018. Quoting and reporting across languages: A system-based and text-based typology. <i>WORD</i> 64:2 ► pp. 69 ff. DOI logo
Chad Walker
2018. Sentence Final Particles (SFPs) and Audience Sensitivity in Korean Discourse: A Multimodal Discourse Approach. Language Facts and Perspectives 43:null ► pp. 179 ff. DOI logo
Chor, Winnie
2018. Sentence final particles as epistemic modulators in Cantonese conversations: A discourse-pragmatic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 129 ► pp. 34 ff. DOI logo
Wai, Brian Lap-ming & Foong Ha Yap
2018. Inclusivity and exclusivity in the use of Cantonese ngo5dei6 (‘we’) in evasive replies in Hong Kong political discourse. Discourse & Society 29:6 ► pp. 691 ff. DOI logo
Bernárdez, Enrique
2017. Evidentiality—A Cultural Interpretation. In Advances in Cultural Linguistics [Cultural Linguistics, ], ► pp. 433 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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 november 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.