Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 40:4 (2016) ► pp.872–893

Emotion in interaction

A diachronic and pragmatic analysis of the sentence-final particle -tani in Korean

| Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
The present paper investigates how the Korean sentence-final particle -tani is used to mark mirativity. More interestingly, this paper discusses how Korean speakers or writers employ this mirative marker -tani (i) to often express their negative emotions and satisfy their face needs and (ii) to elicit the reader’s engagement, using data from the Sejong Contemporary Spoken and Written Corpus. This paper also examines the development of -tani: The non-subjective complementations, in this case involving constructions with the quotative -tani, come to be reinterpreted as subjective constructions with sentence-final -tani, syntactically and pragmatically reanalyzed as a mirative marker. In addition, the findings from this study have broader theoretical and cross-linguistic implications for the existence of mirativity as distinct from evidentiality and the interaction of mirativity with the expression of emotional attitudes (see DeLancey 2001, 2012).
Keywords: emotional attitudes, mirativity, Korean sentence-final particle, subjectification, main clause ellipsis, quotative, evidentiality
Published online: 2 February 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.40.4.04ahn
References (63)
Ahn, Mikyung. 2016. Surprise in discourse: The mirative meanings of –ta(ha)-derived sentence final particles in Korean. Language and Linguistics 711: 95–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ahn, Mikyung & Foong Ha Yap. 2014. On the development of Korean ‘say’ evidentials and their extended pragmatic functions. Diachronica 31(3): 299–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Evidentiality in interaction. A pragmatic analysis of Korean hearsay evidential markers. Studies in Language 39(1): 46–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ahn, Joo Hoh. 2003. A Study on Quotation Sentence & Grammaticalization of Quotation Markers in Korean. Discourse and Cognition 10(1): 145–165.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & Robert M.W. Dixon. 2003. Studies in evidentiality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexander Y. & Randy J. LaPolla. 2007. New perspectives on evidentials: a view from Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 30(2): 1–12.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2012. The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology 161: 435–485. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aksu, Ayhan & Dan Slobin. 1986. A psychological account of the development and use of evidentials in Turkish. In Wallace L. Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 159–167. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.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
Aune, Krystyna Strzyzewski, R. Kelly Aune & David B. Buller. 1994. The experience, expression, and perceived appropriateness of emotions across levels of relationship development. Journal of Social Psychology 1341: 141–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. & Johanna Nichols (eds.) 1986. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. New Jersey: Ablex.Google Scholar
Choi, Hyun-Bae 1937. Urimalbon [Korean Grammar]. Seoul: Jungeumsa.Google Scholar
Chung, Kyung-Sook. 2012a. Space in Tense: The Interaction of Tense, Aspect, Evidentiality and Speech Acts in Korean, Vol. 1891. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012b. The Semantics of the Korean Sentence-Final Suffix -ney: in Relation to Evidentiality and Mirativity. Korean Journal of Linguistics 37(4): 995–1016. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 11: 33–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33(2): 369–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Still mirative after all these years. Linguistic Typology 16(3): 529–564.Google Scholar
Ekman, Paul & Wallace V. Friesen. 1975. Unmasking the face. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Ekman, Paul. 1980. Asymmetry in facial expression. Science 2091: 833–834. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1984. Expression and the nature of emotion. In K. Scherer & P. Ekman (eds.), Approaches to Emotion, 319–344. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google 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, M. 2003. Propositional- and illocutionary-level evidentiality in Cuzco Quechua. In J. Anderssen, P. Menéndez-Benito, & A. Werle (eds.), Proceedings of SULA 2, 19–33. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Gipper, Sonja. 2011. Evidentiality and intersubjectivity in Yurakará: An interactional account. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institut für Psycholinguistik.Google Scholar
Givon, Talmy. 1982. Evidentiality and epistemic space. Studies in Language 61: 23–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Doubleday Anchor.Google Scholar
Hein, Veronika. 2007. The mirative and its interplay with evidentiality in the Tibetan dialect of Tabo (Spiti). Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 30(2): 195–214.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New Reflections on Grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language), 83–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & Hella Olbertz. 2012. Didn’t you know? Mirativity does exist! Linguistic Typology 16(3): 487–503.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jang, Yo-han. 2013. The study on Historical Change of Conjoined Endings ‘keoniwa’ and ‘-dani’. The Korean Language and Literature 31: 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jeon, Byung-yong. 1999. Cwungseykwuke-uy Emi -ni-ey Tayhan Yenkwu [A Study on the ending -ni in Middle Korean]. Seoul: Cheongtongkewul Publishing.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars & Bo Utas. 2000. Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Hee Kyong. 2011. A study on the structural features of Indirect Quotation of Korean. Korean Linguistics 521. 51–82.Google Scholar
Ko, Kyounghee. 1989. The integrated/new knowledge markers in Korean. Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon M.A. thesis.Google Scholar
Kwon, Iksoo. 2013. The Semantics of the Korean Sentence-Final Suffix -Ney Revisited: Response to Chung (2012). Korean Journal of Linguistics 38(1): 53–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1989. The limits of politeness: Therapeutic and courtroom discourse. Multilingua 81: 101–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Chung-min. 1976. Cases for Psychological Verbs in Korean. Ene (Language) 1(1): 256–296.Google Scholar
. 1980. Syntax and Semantics of Conditional and Causal Constructions in Korean. Selected Papers from the 1st International Conference on Korean Studies , 644–656. Seoul: The Korea Academy of Korea Studies.
. 2011/2012. Evidentials and modals: What makes them unique. International Journal of Language Data Processing (SDV) 35/361: 71–98.Google Scholar
Lee, Hyo Sang. 1985. Consciously-known but unassimilated information: A pragmatic analysis of the epistemic modal -kwun in Korean. Proceedings of the First Pacific Linguistics Conference , 183–210. Eugene: Department of Linguistics, University of Oregon.
. 1993. Cognitive constraints on expressing newly perceived information, with reference to epistemic modal suffixes in Korean. Cognitive Linguistics 4(2): 135–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lim, Dong Sik. 2010. Evidentials and Interrogatives: A Case Study from Korean. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Metts, Sandra & Sally Planalp. 2002. Emotional communication. In M. Knapp & J.A. Daly (eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed.), 339–373. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Park, Jin Ho. 2011. Grammatical Elements Containing Evidential or Mirative Components in Korean. Language & Information Society 151: 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Park, Naree. 2013. A study on descriptions of contraction form ’dani’ in KFL grammar. Bilingual Research 511: 45–80.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha. 2012. Context-induced reinterpretation and (inter)subjectification: the case of grammaticalization of sentence-final particles. Language Sciences 34(3): 284–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Dan & Ayhan Aksu. 1982. Tense, aspect, and modality in the use of Turkish evidential. In P.J. Hopper (ed.), Tense-aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics, 185–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
So-Hartmann, Helga. 2009. A descriptive grammar of Daai Chin (STEDT Monograph 7). Berkeley, CA: Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus Project.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-Min. 1994. Korean. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 1999. The Korean Language. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.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 . HongKong Polytech University, Sept 2.
Strauss, Susan. 2005. Cognitive realization markers: A discourse-pragmatic study of the sentence ending particles -kwun, -ney, and -tela . Language Sciences 21: 437–480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 651: 31–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Ekkehard König. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Elizabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. I1, 189–218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. From subjectification to intersubjectification. In R. Hickey (ed.), Motives for language change, 124–139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Eijk, J.P. 1997. CVC reduplication in Salish. Trends in linguistics studies and monographs 1071: 453–476.Google Scholar
Watters, David E. 2002. A grammar of Kham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willett, Thomas. 1988. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 121: 51–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeevat, Henk. 2013. Expressing surprise by particles. In Daniel Gutzmann & Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds.), Beyond expressives: Explorations in use conditional meaning (Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface 28), 297–320. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Kim, Hyunsu & Duck-Young Lee
2023. Another’s voice. East Asian Pragmatics 8:2 ► pp. 217 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
Kim, Ahrim & Iksoo Kwon
2020. The Korean hortative construction revisited. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 30:3 ► pp. 351 ff. DOI logo
Rhee, Seongha & Hyun Jung Koo
2020. From quotation to surprise: The case in Korean. Journal of Pragmatics 155 ► pp. 83 ff. DOI logo
Kang, Arum
2018. Unexpectedness Effect: The Emphatic Determiner with Gradable NPs in Korean. The Journal of Studies in Language 33:4 ► pp. 595 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 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.