Korean imperatives at two different speech levels: Alternate ways of taking part in others’ actions and affairs

Mary Shin Kim
Abstract

Korean imperatives are differentiated by speech levels or levels of honorification. Accordingly, most research on Korean imperatives examines them from the perspective of politeness and interpersonal relations. This study takes a different approach, focusing on two types of non-honorific imperative turn design: one with the intimate speech level imperative e/a and the other with the plain speech level imperative ela/ala. Close examination of the forms in naturally occurring conversation provides a clearer picture of when and how the use of these imperatives is warranted by specific interactional configurations and contexts in everyday Korean talk-in-interaction. This study shows that alternate imperatives do not simply index politeness or social status, but are important resources for implementing separate action formats that pursue divergent interactional trajectories.

Keywords:
Publication history
Table of contents

1.Introduction

Mobilizing others to act is an essential practice in social interaction as people need assistance and cooperation from one another (Taleghani-Nikazm et al. 2020Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen, Emma Betz, and Peter Golato eds. 2020Mobilizing Others: Grammar and Lexis within Larger Activities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). Imperatives are primordial grammatical forms for mobilizing others to do something. Yet, as Sorjonen, Raevaara, and Couper-Kuhlen (2017Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen eds. 2017Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 1–3) pointed out, because imperatives have been viewed mainly as commands and as face-threatening acts that speakers prefer to avoid, pragmatics research has paid less attention to imperatives than to indirect speech acts as ways to mobilize others (Hickey and Stewart 2005Hickey, Leo, and Miranda Stewart 2005Politeness in Europe. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). Moreover, the use of imperatives over other forms (e.g., interrogatives) has been mainly discussed in terms of the interlocutors’ social distance and relative power (Blum-Kulka et al. 1989Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House, and Gabriele Kasper 1989Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar; Brown and Levinson 1987Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson 1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar), leading to the correlation of imperatives with levels of politeness. This is particularly pertinent for Korean, which has a complex honorific system in which levels of deference, formality or politeness are encoded in grammar and must be marked on the verb (Brown 2015Brown, Lucien 2015 “Honorifics and Politeness.” In The Handbook of Korean Linguistics, ed. by Lucien Brown, and Jaehoon Yoon, 303–319. West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Sohn 1999 1999The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar).

In Korean, six different imperative forms (imperative suffixes attached to verb stems) correlate with the six different speech levels or levels of honorification (Sohn 1999 1999The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar). Table 1 illustrates the imperative forms across the six speech levels with the verb cwu- ‘to give’ as an example.

Table 1.Imperative forms across speech levels
Non-honorific Honorific
Speech level Plain Intimate Familiar Blunt Polite Deferential
Imperative ela/ala e/a key o eyo/ayo (u)sipsio
cwu- ‘to give’ cwu-ela cwu-e cwu-key cwu-o cwu-e-yo cwu-sipsio

According to the traditional explanation, Korean speakers select speech levels depending on the relationship between the speaker and the addressee (i.e., their social distance and relative power). Thus, the deferential and polite levels employ honorific forms that mark deference to the addressee. They are generally used when addressing strangers, non-intimates, and superiors. Intimate and plain levels are non-honorific; they are more casual and are used between speakers in close relationship, such as family members and friends. The familiar level is used in limited situations, such as by an elderly person to a young adult, and the blunt style, which has authoritative connotations, is disappearing from daily usage (Brown 2015Brown, Lucien 2015 “Honorifics and Politeness.” In The Handbook of Korean Linguistics, ed. by Lucien Brown, and Jaehoon Yoon, 303–319. West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Sohn 1999 1999The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar). In this view of the honorific system, the choice of an imperative form would be fixed according to the speakers’ interpersonal relationship (Aikhenvald 2010Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2010Imperatives and Commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar; Park 1994Park, Young Jun 1994Myongnyongmun ui kugosachok yon’gu [A study on Korean imperative constructions]. Seoul: Kwukhak calyowen.Google Scholar; Sohn 1994Sohn, Ho-Min 1994Korean. London: Routledge.Google Scholar). This study calls this simplified assumption into question. The use of the honorific deferential and polite imperatives over the non-honorific intimate and plain imperatives is by and large tied to the social distance and power between the speakers; for instance, a store clerk would use deferential or polite imperatives over intimate or plain imperatives to a customer. However, an examination of the imperatives in naturally occurring conversation shows that politeness and interpersonal relations are not sufficient to explain some of the choices between non-honorific imperatives.

This study examines two types of imperative turn design in Korean interaction: one with the e/a imperative form (the suffix is e or a depending on the last vowel of the main verb) and the other with the ela/ala imperative form (the suffix is ela or ala depending on the last vowel of the main verb). The two forms belong to different speech levels: e/a is the intimate speech level, and ela/ala is the plain speech level. For instance, the plain level ela/ala imperative (hereafter, the plain imperative) and the intimate level e/a (hereafter, the intimate imperative) can both be used between speakers in a close relationship (e.g., family members, close friends). However, some studies argue that the plain imperative is lower and thus cannot be used to someone older than the speaker (Han 2004Han, Kil 2004Hyondae uri mal ui mach’im ssikkut yon’gu [A study on Korean sentence-enders]. Seoul: Yeklak.Google Scholar; Kim et al. 2005Kim, Joungsook, Dongho Park, Byungkyu Lee, Hyeyoung Lee, Heejung Jung, Jungsoon Choi, and Yong Huh 2005Oegugin ul wihan han’gugo munpop 1 [Korean grammar for foreign language learners 1]. Seoul: Communication Books.Google Scholar). For example, a mother could use it to her daughter but not vice versa, while the intimate imperative could be used by and to both. Studies have mainly explained the difference between the forms in terms of such social power or age hierarchies. However, in naturally occurring conversation, the same speakers will mix the plain and intimate speech levels in a single interaction (Sohn 1999 1999The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar, 271). Moreover, the mother can use both forms towards her daughter. When, then, would the mother choose the plain imperative over the intimate imperative, or vice versa? In addition, speakers of equal status and in close relationship (e.g., same-age friends) can use both forms to each other, as in Excerpts (1) and (2).

Excerpt 1.Call (me)
01 A:
nacwungey hh
later
tto hh
again
cenhwaha-[lkey. hh
call-will

‘I will call (you) later hh again. hh’

02 B:
[e
yes
kulay hh
okay

‘Yes, okay. hh’

03 B:
kulay hh
okay
kulem
then
nacwungey
later
tto
again
cenhwa
call
hay::.
do:intimate.imp

‘Okay, hh then, ca::ll (me) later again.’

04 A:
e:[:.
yes

‘Yes.’

05 B:
[e.
yes

‘Yes.’

Excerpt 2.Call (me)
01 B:
ung
yeah
yenlakha-lkey.
contact-will

‘Yeah. I will keep in touch.’

02 A:
ung
yeah
kulay
okay
<ya↑
hey

‘Yeah, okay. Hey!’

03 B:

um

‘Yeah.’

04 A:
ceki
dm
mwe-ni?
what-q
cenhwa--
phone
cenhwa
phone
com
a.little
hay:la::
do:plain.imp
ne-twu::
you-too

‘Um, you know what? Call- Ca::ll (me). You too:: (should call me)!’

05 B:
kulay
okay
[al-ass-e.]
understand-pst-dc

‘Okay, I will.’

In both segments, two friends are closing a telephone call and promising to keep in touch.

However, the speakers’ choice of imperative form is different in the two excerpts: the intimate imperative (cenhwa hay ‘Call (me).’) in Excerpt (1), line 3, and the plain imperative (cenhwa hayla. ‘Call (me).’) in Excerpt (2), line 4. What is the explanation for the choice of one imperative form over the other in such similar situations? These questions inspired this examination of how these two imperative forms are actually used and what their differences are in naturally occurring social interaction.

The current study builds on prior studies on Korean imperatives, with some important differences. Previous studies argue that Korean speakers avoid using direct imperatives, preferring indirect strategies such as interrogatives (Byon 2001Byon, Andrew 2001 “The Communicative Act of Requests: Interlanguage Features of American KFL Learners.” PhD diss. University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.; Koo 2001Koo, Dohee 2001 “Realisations of Two Speech Acts of Heritage Learners of Korean: Requests and Apology Strategies.” PhD diss. Ohio State University.; Rue, Zhang and Shin 2007Rue, Yong Ju, Grace Zhang, and Kyu Shin 2007 “Request Strategies in Korean.” In Proceedings of the Fifth Biennial Korean Studies Association of Australasia Conference, ed. by Korean Studies Association of Australasia, Kyu Suk Shin, and Hyun Chang, 112–119. Perth: Curtin University of Technology.Google Scholar). This claim is often supported by evidence from discourse completion tasks, which are based on imaginary scenarios invoking remote-action requests for a favor (e.g., for a recommendation letter or a ride). In addition, most prior studies that discuss Korean imperatives consider them to reflect an intrinsic degree of (im)politeness depending on the speech level (Aikhenvald 2010Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2010Imperatives and Commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar; Park 1994Park, Young Jun 1994Myongnyongmun ui kugosachok yon’gu [A study on Korean imperative constructions]. Seoul: Kwukhak calyowen.Google Scholar; Sohn 1994Sohn, Ho-Min 1994Korean. London: Routledge.Google Scholar). These studies, however, rely on constructed written text.

A growing body of recent research examines imperatives in authentic face-to-face interactions. These studies show that imperatives are not avoided, but are in fact prevalent in naturally occurring everyday interactions across a variety of situations and settings in many languages, including English, Italian, Russian, and more (Drew and Couper-Kuhlen 2014Drew, Paul, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen 2014 “Requesting – From Speech Act to Recruitment Requesting.” In Requesting in Social Interaction, ed. by Paul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 1–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Sorjonen et al. 2017Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen eds. 2017Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). In Korean, imperatives in naturally occurring conversation are used to formulate here-and-now actions, in particular requests (Kim 2020 2020 “Imperative Requests in Korean Interaction.” In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 26, ed. by Shoichi Iwasaki, Susan Strauss, Shin Fukuda, Suh-Ah Jun, Sung-Ock Sohn, and Kie Zuraw, 373–386. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar). Moreover, speakers choose particular imperative formats (imperatives with or without an auxiliary verb) depending on trajectories of action (Kim and Kim 2020Kim, Stephanie Hyeri, and Mary Shin Kim 2020 “Requesting Here-and-Now Actions with Two Imperative Formats in Korean Interaction.” In Mobilizing Others: Grammar and Lexis within Larger Activities, ed. by Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm, Emma Betz, and Peter Golato, 19–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). In line with these studies examining imperatives from an interactional point of view based on conversation analysis and interactional linguistics, this study examines the use of the intimate imperative and the plain imperative in social interaction in order to provide a clearer picture of when and how the use of these imperatives is warranted by specific interactional configurations and contexts in everyday Korean talk-in-interaction. In what sequential and interactional environments does the intimate imperative or the plain imperative occur? How do they differ in terms of action formation? What pragmatic functions do these imperatives carry out in interactions?

Prior studies have revealed that variation in imperative formats, such as imperatives with different modal particles, or bare imperatives versus imperatives with modal particles or auxiliary verbs, is related to the emerging actions and activities of an interaction (Heinemann and Steensig 2017Heinemann, Trine, and Jakob Steensig 2017 “Three Imperative Action Formats in Danish Talk-in-Interaction.” In Sorjonen et al. 2017, 139–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Kim and Kim 2020Kim, Stephanie Hyeri, and Mary Shin Kim 2020 “Requesting Here-and-Now Actions with Two Imperative Formats in Korean Interaction.” In Mobilizing Others: Grammar and Lexis within Larger Activities, ed. by Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm, Emma Betz, and Peter Golato, 19–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Sorjonen 2017Sorjonen, Marja-Leena 2017 “Imperatives and Responsiveness in Finnish Conversation.” In Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 241–270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). This study offers another example of how alternative imperative forms take on different functions in interaction. Its detailed analysis of conversational data demonstrates that the alternative imperative designs at different speech levels are strikingly distinct in terms of the interactional and temporal contexts in which they occur (i.e., here-and-now actions, remote actions), the actions they implement (i.e., requests for an immediate action, challenges, complaints), and the stances they display (i.e., affiliation, disaffiliation). Accordingly, the interactional trajectories in which the two imperatives occur or that they invoke are distinct. The study shows that a speaker’s choice of imperative form hinges on pragmatic and interactional factors rather than on politeness or pre-existing social, interpersonal factors. The findings underline the importance of looking beyond politeness and interpersonal relationships to understand imperatives: Imperatives perform essential actions in everyday talk, and their alternate forms implement distinct actions.

2.Data and methodology

This study looked at a personal collection of fourteen video-recorded face-to-face interactions (490 minutes) and thirty-six telephone calls (1,080 minutes) from the Linguistic Data Consortium (LDC) Korean Telephone Conversations Speech corpus. The interactions are among family members, friends, and acquaintances. The interactants include 116 different speakers from their teens to their seventies.

The study employs the methods of conversation analysis (Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson 1974Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson 1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50: 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Schegloff 2007Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar) and interactional linguistics (Couper-Kuhlen and Selting 2018Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting 2018Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar; Ochs, Schegloff and Thompson 1996Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson 1996Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). Taking account of grammar, prosody, and the organization of interaction, the analysis considers the two imperative forms in terms of how speakers deploy them to formulate turns and actions, how the forms systematically occur in specific interactional and temporal environments, and how the talk-in-interaction unfolds.

The detailed, conversation-analytically informed examination of video-recorded face-to-face interactions and telephone calls shows that imperatives are prevalent in Korean interaction, as Tables 2 and 3 show.

Table 2.Distribution and frequency of intimate (speech level) imperatives
Intimate (speech level) imperatives
Here-and-now actions 181 Face-to-face (80)
Telephone (101)
Remote actions  61 Face-to-face (8)
Telephone (53)
Total 242 Face-to-face (88)
Telephone (154)
Table 3.Distribution and frequency of plain (speech level) imperatives
Plain (speech level) imperatives
Here-and-now actions  6 Face-to-face (1)
Telephone (5)
Remote actions 36 Telephone (36)
Total 42 Face-to-face (1)
Telephone (41)

The tables further show the distribution and frequency of the two imperatives across different interactional and temporal contexts: implementing here-and-now actions (the speaker asks the recipient to perform an action now in the ongoing interaction) versus remote actions (the speaker asks for the recipient’s commitment to perform an action at some later time). The first striking difference is the predominance of intimate imperatives (242 instances of intimate imperatives vs. forty-two instances of plain imperatives). In addition, the intimate imperatives are readily used to direct or request here-and-now actions: eighty instances in face-to-face interactions (e.g., requests to pass the speaker an object or requests for immediate assistance) and 101 instances in telephone calls (e.g., requests to speak to someone or hold the line). In contrast, the plain imperative is rarely used for here-and-now actions (only six occurrences). While the intimate imperatives are used widely for both here-and-now actions and remote actions, the plain imperatives are mostly limited to remote actions.

These differences suggest that the two imperatives are employed in different interactional and temporal contexts and accomplish different types of actions in social interaction. We examine how the two imperative forms are used, first, to direct here-and-now actions (Section 3), and second, to direct remote actions (Section 4). The findings provide an explanation of how these imperatives carry out distinct social actions and why they show striking discrepancies in their distribution and frequency across varied interactional contexts.

3.Imperatives for here-and-now actions

In spontaneous Korean interaction, imperative forms are readily deployed to request here-and-now actions, with the intimate imperatives predominant in this use (Tables 2 and 3). The following representative examples from the data collection will first illustrate the usage of the intimate imperatives and then compare instances of intimate imperatives and plain imperatives occurring in similar contexts.

3.1Intimate imperatives in formulating here-and-now directives and requests

The intimate imperatives are prevalently used when the speaker directs or requests the recipient to carry out the nominated action here-and-now, such as when one provides an instructional directive (e.g., giving directions) or makes a request to mobilize other speakers to do something (e.g., reach for an object). Excerpt (3) shows a case where the speaker uses an imperative form to initiate a directive. Two cousins, Jin and Mia, have just entered the parking lot of a department store. Jin is driving and Mia is in the passenger seat, and it is raining as they arrive.

Excerpt 3.Go to the underground parking
01 Jin:
cali-ka
spot-nom
[iss-na:?
exist-q

‘(I) wonder if there is a (parking) spot.’

02 Mia:
[cello
that.way
ci--
under
ciha-lo
underground-to
tuleka.=
enter:intimate.imp

‘That way, under- go to the underground (parking).’

03
=pi
rain
o-nikka.
come-since
ciha
underground
emcheng
really
kiph-e.
deep-dc

‘Since it is raining. The underground is really deep.’

04 Mia:
yeki
here
cheum
first
wa pwa? =
visit:q
cepeney
last.time
wa-ss-ess-canh-a.
come-pst-pst-you.know-dc

‘Is it (your) first time here? You came here last time, right?’

05 Jin:
han
one
pen
time
wa-ss-ten kes
come-pst-had.been
kath-ay.
seem.like-dc

‘(I) think (I) have been (here) once.’

06 (0.5)
07 Mia:
* ceki
there
cello
that.way
tuleka
enter:intimate.imp
ciha
underground
cwuchacang.*
parking

‘There, go that way to the underground parking.’

*pointing toward the underground parking

08 +(4.0)+
Jin: +continues to drive in the direction Mia indicates+

As Jin wonders about the parking, Mia directs him to drive into the underground parking structure and provides accounts for this directive (the rain and the parking structure’s depth, which means it will have many spaces). Mia’s directive is constructed with the intimate imperative (tuleka ‘enter + imperative a’), as shown in line 2. The use of an imperative is warranted when both participants have a joint project or goal (Rossi 2012Rossi, Giovanni 2012 “Bilateral and Unilateral Requests: The Use of Imperatives and mi X? Interrogatives in Italian.” Discourse Processes 49: 426–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Wootton 1997Wootton, Anthony 1997Interaction and the Development of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar) or when there is a pressing or urgent need for the nominated action (Goodwin and Cekaite 2013Goodwin, Marjorie Harness, and Asta Cekaite 2013 “Calibration in Directive/Response Sequences in Family Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 46 (1): 122–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Mondada 2017Mondada, Lorenza 2017 “Precision Timing and Timed Embeddedness of Imperatives in Embodied Courses of Action: Examples from French.” In Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 65–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). Mia’s directive meets both conditions: Mia and Jin share the same goal of finding a parking spot and there is an imminent need to park the car. Moreover, Mia is more familiar with the parking situation, as demonstrated in lines 4–5 wherein she questions Jin’s familiarity with the place. When Mia reissues the same instruction in line 7, she again constructs it with the intimate imperative (tuleka ‘enter + imperative a’).

It is consistently observed across the data collection that practical, everyday, here-and-now actions that require the recipient to do something for the requester are formatted with the intimate imperatives. In Excerpt (4), Ara and Jun are watching a soccer game on the television right in front of them. While they are both gazing at the television, Ara starts to take off her earrings (line 1) and makes a request to Jun to fetch her jewelry box for her (line 2).

Excerpt 4.Take that out for me
01 *+(2.0)+*

Jun:

Ara:

*watches soccer game on television*

+takes earring off left ear+

02 Ara:
+ceke
that.thing
kkenay cwe.+
take.out.for.me:intimate.imp

Take that out for me.’

+points at the jewelry box in front of Jun+

03 *(7.0)*
Jun: *stretches his upper body to reach for the jewelry box*

Compared to Excerpt (3), here the speaker’s request is a unilateral request (Rossi 2012Rossi, Giovanni 2012 “Bilateral and Unilateral Requests: The Use of Imperatives and mi X? Interrogatives in Italian.” Discourse Processes 49: 426–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar) made to the benefit of the requester only. However, what is requested is a low-cost action as it is compatible with the current situation of the requestee. Jun, who is watching the game, simply stretches his upper body to reach for the jewelry box in front of him. Cross-linguistically, low-cost actions tend to be requested via imperatives (Rossi 2017 2017 “Secondary and Deviant Uses of the Imperative in Italian.” In Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 103–137. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Sorjonen et al. 2017Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen eds. 2017Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). In contrast, interrogatives are usually used instead of imperatives to request high-cost actions; that is, when the requested action is not contiguous to what the recipient is doing, and carrying out the request requires the suspension of the recipient’s own activity. Note that, in constructing this low-cost request, the intimate imperative is again deployed (line 2, kkenay cwe ‘take out for me + imperative e’).

In contrast to intimate imperatives, plain imperatives are rarely used for here-and-now actions. Among the few instances, one occurs about two minutes earlier in the same interaction from which Excerpt (4) is taken. In Excerpt (5), while Ara and Jun are watching the soccer game, Ara shouts out what she thinks the players should do.

Excerpt 5.Kick (the ball)

Ara is watching a soccer match.

01 Ara:
CHA-LA↑
kick:plain.imp
ppeng
hard
a
ah
a
ah
a
ah
mwe
what
ha-nya?
do-q

KICK↑ (the ball) hard! ah, ah, ah, what are (you) doing?’

02
way
why
tto
again
ppayski-nya?
be.stolen-q

‘Why did (you) let the (ball) get stolen again?’

Here, Ara’s turn begins with a plain imperative urging the players to kick the ball harder (chala ‘kick + ala’) followed by a series of complaintive wh rhetorical questions (lines 1–2, ‘What are (you) doing?’, ‘Why did (you) let the (ball) get stolen again?’). While Ara’s imperative turn in Excerpt (4), line 2 makes a concrete request to a co-participant, her plain imperative in Excerpt (5), line 1 is not really directing the players, but rather a rhetorical display of her dissatisfaction with their performance. The rhetorical nature of her directive is clear due to the context (the players are not co-present) as well as her delivery, which is in a high pitch (marked by ) and a loud voice (marked by capital letters). This finding is in line with a suggestion made by Lee (1994)Lee, Hyo Sang 1994 “Discourse-Pragmatic Functions of Sentence-type Suffixes in Informal Discourse in Korean.” In Theoretical Issues in Korean Linguistics, ed. by Young-Key Kim-Renaud, 517–539. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar that speakers use plain imperatives when circumstances are counter to the speaker’s liking or an assumed norm. Lee’s discourse functional perspective is in contrast to the majority of studies that discuss the function of the plain imperative in terms of speech level and politeness (Han 2004Han, Kil 2004Hyondae uri mal ui mach’im ssikkut yon’gu [A study on Korean sentence-enders]. Seoul: Yeklak.Google Scholar; Kim et al. 2005Kim, Joungsook, Dongho Park, Byungkyu Lee, Hyeyoung Lee, Heejung Jung, Jungsoon Choi, and Yong Huh 2005Oegugin ul wihan han’gugo munpop 1 [Korean grammar for foreign language learners 1]. Seoul: Communication Books.Google Scholar). However, while Lee is concerned with what is going on in an individual speaker’s mind, the current study aims to understand how the choice of the plain imperative emerges in interaction (the interactional trajectory in which the plain imperative occurs and which it invokes) and what actions the speaker implements through the choice. In the following section, we examine cases in which the plain and intimate imperatives are directed to an existing co-participant to see how these different choices of imperatives emerge in the course of interaction.

3.2Alternate imperative choices for the same verb

The differences between the intimate imperatives and plain imperatives become more evident when we examine their use with the same action verb. In Excerpts (6) and (7), the speakers construct imperative turns with the verb yayki ha- ‘to talk’. Let’s first look at the case of the intimate imperative, yayki hay ‘talk’, in Excerpt (6), from a telephone call between two friends, Jia and Bom. In the midst of their call, Jia announces that her son is visiting her at home (line 1), and she has her son and Bom talk to one another.

Excerpt 6.Talk with Aiden
01 Jia:
ya,
dm
cikum
now
aiden-i
name-nom
cikum
now
cip-ey
home-at
wa iss-nuntey
stay-and

‘Hey, right now, Aiden is visiting home,’

02
camkkan (.) >
moment
yayki
talk
com
a:little
hay. <=
do:intimate.imp

Talk (with him) for a moment.’

03

=Aiden [Auntie--

‘Aiden, (it’s) Auntie-‘

04 Bom:

[A:: Aide::n.

‘AH:: Aide::n!’

05 Jia:
ung
yeah
ung
yeah
aiden-i
name-nom
cikum
now
naylyewa-se,
come.down-and

‘Yeah, yeah, Aiden came down and’

06 Bom:

e.

‘Uh huh.’

07 Jia:
cenhwa--
phone
ca-ko
sleep-and
nay--
tomorrow
nayil
tomorrow
ka-lyeko.
leave-will

‘phone-, (he) will sleep and leave to-- tomorrow.’

08 Bom:
e.
uh.huh
nayil
tomorrow
ka-lla--
leave-will

‘Uh huh. Tomorrow (he) leaves-’

09 Jia:
e.
yeah
mal
talk
com
a:little
hay.
do:intimate.imp

‘Yeah. Talk (with auntie).

10 Aid: Hello auntie? ((speaking cheerfully))
11 Bom: Hi Aide::n. ((speaking lovingly))

Both when Jia asks Bom to talk to her son (Aiden) in line 2, and when she asks her son to talk to Bom (referred to as “auntie”) in line 9, she uses the intimate imperative (yayki hay ‘Talk (with him)’, mal hay ‘Talk (with auntie).’). Although Jia’s requests are somewhat abrupt, Jia anticipates compliance; indeed, the recipients display no problem with Jia’s action and comply happily with the request, as shown in lines 10–11, in which they greet one another enthusiastically.

Next, let’s examine how a turn with the same verb but with the plain imperative, yayki hayla ‘talk’, emerges in interaction. Excerpt (7)11.Parts of Excerpt (7) are discussed by Kuroshima et al. (2021Kuroshima, Satomi, Stephanie Hyeri Kim, Kaoru Hayano, Mary Shin Kim, and Seung Hee Lee 2021 “When OKAY Is Repeated: Closing the Talk So Far in Korean and Japanese Conversations.” In Okay Across Languages: Toward a Comparative Approach to Its Use in Talk-in-Interaction, ed. by Emma Betz, Arnulf Deppermann, Lorenza Mondada, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 235–265. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 249–251) in analyzing the usage of the duplicated okay (line 27). comes from a telephone call in which Sue tells her friend Hee, who lives in New York City (NYC), about the beautiful scenery she enjoyed during a road trip from Buffalo to NYC.

Excerpt 7.Talk frankly
01 Sue:
kuntey
by.the.way
yeki
here
nyuyok
new.york
o-nun
come-rl
kil-i
road-nom
02
elmana
how.much
yeppe-ss-nunci
pretty-pst-whether
molu-n-ta?
not.know-prs-dc

‘By the way, you have no idea how beautiful the road was to New York.’

03 Hee:
way:
why

‘Why? (What happened?)’

04 Sue:
kuttay
that.time
wuli-ka:
we-nom
han
about
sey
three
si
hour
ccum
about
chwulpal-ul
start-acc
hay-ss-ta¿
do-pst-dc

‘We left around three o’clock at that time.’

05 Hee:

ung

‘Uh huh.’

((Sue explains with whom she drove

in the omitted lines.))

12 Sue:
ku
that
sikan-i
time-nom
nemwu
so
nemwu
so
yeyppu-canh-a:.
pretty-you.know-dc:.

‘It’s so, so beautiful during that (sunset) time.’

13
kim
name
hee
name
kathun
such
kamswuseng-ulo-nun
sensibility-with-top
tocehi
at.all
14
a-l
know-rl
swu-ka
possibility-nom
eps-keyss-ci[ma:n.
not.have-must-but

‘There is no possibility at all for a person like

Hee Kim with such sensibility to possibly know, but’

15 Hee:

[hh hh

‘hh hh’

16 Sue:
kulaykaciko
so
[awu]
wow
ne:mwu
so
nemwu
so
yeyppu-n
pretty-rl
ke-ya.
thing-be:dc

‘So, wow, (the road) was so:, so beautiful.’

17 Hee:

[ung]

‘Uh huh.’

18 Sue:
[kuntey]
but
yeki
here
o-ta--
come-and
nyuyok
new.york
o-nun
come-rl
tey-nun?
place-top

‘On the way here-, the road to New York,

19 Hee:

[ung]

‘Uh huh’

20 Hee:

ung

‘Uh huh’

21 Sue:
mak
dm
ccwa::k
spread.out
mak--
dm
wancenhi
totally
[san-i-ya.
mountain-be-dc

‘it’s like a spectacle with the mountains spread out.’

22 Hee:
[al-a
know-dc
na-to
i-too
enni.]
sister

‘I know (it) too, sister.’

23
kuccok
that.side
ka-nun
go-rl
kil:
road
yeynaley
long.time.ago
[na--
i

‘that road to (NYC), a long time ago, I-’

24 Sue:
[AL-KI-N
know-nml-top
MWEL
what:acc
AL-E↓ hh
know-q

‘Know what? (You know nothing.) hh’

25 Hee:
CAKNYEN-EY
last.year-at
CONNETICUT
connecticut
KA-NUN
go-rl
KIL-EY
road-on
26
KEKI
there
TULLE-SS-TA↓
stop.by-pst-dc

‘Last year, (I) stopped by there on the way to Connecticut.’

27 Sue:

O:KA:Y O:KA:Y

‘O:ka:y O:ka:y.’

((Sue describes seeing animals including a deer during the trip in the omitted lines.))

38 Hee:
enni-ka
sister-nom
wuncen
driving
an
not
ha-nikka
do-since
39
sasum
deer
manna-to
meet-though
kep
fear
an
no
na-ci?
have-comm

‘Since you are not (the one) driving, even if (you) meet a deer (you) don’t have any fears, do you?’

40 Sue:
ani
no
kamanhi
still
se iss-ess-e.=
stand.still-pst-dc
ku
that
sasum-un.=
deer-top

‘No, (it) was standing still. That deer.’

41
=tolo
road
han
one
[phyen-ey:.
side-to

‘On the side of the road.’

42 Hee:

hhh hhh

‘hhh hhh’

43 Sue:
cham
huh
na
i
ani
dm
mal-ul
word-acc
kkuth-kkaci
end-till
tul-ela:.=
listen-plain.imp

Huh, for god’s sake, hear me ou:t.

44
ike-n
this.thing-top
mwe
dm
yenge-to
english-even
mos
not
ha-ci
speak-comm

‘(You) can’t speak English, either.’

45
hankwukmal-to
korean.language-even
ceytaylo
well
mos
not
tut-ci.
listen-comm

‘(You) can’t even understand Korean well.’

46
nacwungey
later
ecce-lyeko
how-intend.to
kule-nya?
do.so-q

‘What are (you) going to do later on?’

47 Hee:

hhh

‘hhh’

48 Sue:
com
a.little
kekcengtoy-ci?
be.concerned-comm

‘(You) are a little concerned (about yourself), right?’

49 Hee:

um:.

‘Ye:s’

50 Sue:
solcikhi
frankly
yayki
talk
hay-la.
do-plain.imp

Talk frankly (Be straight with me).’

51 Hee:

hhh hhh hh

‘hhh hhh hh’

52 Sue:
acwu
very
[changphihay cwuk-keyss-e.
extremely.embarrassed-must.be-dc

‘(You) must be extremely embarrassed.’

53 Hee:
[kulayse
so
mwe
what
pothay
help-rl
cwu-n
thing
ke iss-nya-kwu::.
exist-q-qt

‘So what, were you of any help?’

Sue and Hee repeatedly tease one another throughout the storytelling. While telling her story, Sue first teases Hee as someone who lacks appreciation (lines 13–14) of the beauty of nature. In response, Hee initially simply laughs (line 15), but later begins to more actively challenge Sue by claiming her own appreciation and knowledge of the beautiful scenery in question, based on her own prior travel experience (lines 22–23). Sue outright rejects Hee’s account (line 24), and in return Hee rebuts Sue’s remark with an account of her own independent recent knowledge of the scenery (lines 25–26). Sue proposes to close this playful tug of war with the duplicated okay (Kuroshima et al. 2021Kuroshima, Satomi, Stephanie Hyeri Kim, Kaoru Hayano, Mary Shin Kim, and Seung Hee Lee 2021 “When OKAY Is Repeated: Closing the Talk So Far in Korean and Japanese Conversations.” In Okay Across Languages: Toward a Comparative Approach to Its Use in Talk-in-Interaction, ed. by Emma Betz, Arnulf Deppermann, Lorenza Mondada, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 235–265. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 251) and continues to tell her story, talking about the animals she saw while on the road (line 27 and omitted lines 28–37). Now, Hee reciprocates the teasing: she portrays Sue as inconsiderately sitting back to enjoy her animal-watching, entirely carefree, while others do the driving (lines 38–39). In response, Sue first corrects Hee’s understanding of the matter (lines 40–41). Then, at this interactional juncture, in which Sue and Hee are again at odds with one another, Sue constructs a plain imperative directive in line 43 (‘Huh, for god’s sake, hear me ou:t.’). Much as in Excerpt (5), this plain imperative turn serves to display the speaker’s complaint about the recipient, while expressing the speaker’s wish that the recipient would correct their ongoing action or fault (corrective instructions; Deppermann 2018Deppermann, Arnulf 2018 “Instruction Practices in German Driving Lessons: Differential Uses of Declaratives and Imperatives.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 28 (2): 265–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar); in Excerpt (5), Ara’s wish that the soccer player would perform better, and here, Sue’s wish that Hee will stop challenging her and let her get to the point of her story. The speakers continue to playfully tease and challenge one another (lines 44–49), and eventually Sue issues another plain imperatively formatted turn in line 50 (solcikhi yayki hay-la ‘Talk frankly’), urging Hee to be straight with her. As we see here once again, the plain imperative directives are consistently used for disaffiliative actions.

Excerpts (6) and (7) clearly show that social and interpersonal factors such as age difference or relative power are insufficient to explain or warrant the use of one imperative form over the other. In Excerpt (7), Sue uses the plain imperative to Hee, who is the younger friend (as shown by Hee addressing Sue as enni ‘sister’ in lines 22 and 38). In Excerpt (6), Jia uses the intimate imperative to her friend, Bom, and to her son, Aiden, regardless of their different relationships to her. In both excerpts, then, the speakers’ choice of imperative form is not determined by an age or power difference. Rather, the two types of imperative turns perform different actions and pursue diverging interactional trajectories. Their combination with same verb, yayki ha- ‘to talk’, highlights the contrast (Excerpt [6], line 2 and Excerpt [7], line 50). The intimate imperatives are used when the speaker does not expect the recipient to have any problem following through with the nominated action, thereby projecting the speaker’s and the recipient’s collaboration in further advancing the interactional trajectory of the moment: Bom and Aiden happily speak to each other, as directed by Jia (Excerpt [6], lines 10–11). The plain imperatives are used when the speaker and the recipient are at odds, displaying disaffiliative stances, thereby projecting that the speaker and recipient will continue to challenge or disagree with one another: indeed, Sue and Hee continue to mock each other (Excerpt [7], lines 51–53).

3.3Alternate imperative choices by the same speaker

The differences between the intimate imperative and plain imperative are again testified in the following excerpt in which the same speaker deploys different imperatives. Excerpt (8) comes from a telephone call between a mother and a son talking about an upcoming visit to the son’s place by an elder of their church (lines 1–5).

Excerpt 8.Look at him
01 Mom:
canglonim-to
elder-also
o-si-n-tay:?
come-sh-prs-hearsay

‘Did they say that the elder would be coming too?’

02 Son:

ney.

‘Yes.’

03 Mom:
um:.
okay
kulem
then
ku
that
canglonim
elder
samonim-to
wife-also
o-si-keyss-ney?
come-sh-must-fr

‘Okay:. Then, the elder’s wife must be coming too?’

04 Son:
hung
phhh
molu-keyss-e-yo
not.know-dct:re-dc-pol
na-twu.
i-either
[mwe
dm
ilehkey--
like.this

‘Phhh! I don’t know. (Why) like this-‘

05 Mom:

e:

‘I see:.’

06 Son:
chongkakney
bachelors
cip-ey
house-at
manhi
much
ilehkey
like.this
o-si-lyeko
come-sh-intend.to
07
kule-nunci
be.so-whether
molla.
not.know:dc
eyhyu:
gosh

‘(I) don’t know why (they) want to come to a bachelor’s house this much. Go:sh.’

08 Mom:
kulssey
dm
pwutam
pressure
epskey
without
kunyang,
just
09
tto
dm
chongkakney
bachelor’s
cip-i-nikka:,
house-be-since

‘Since (your) place is just a bachelor’s (place), without much pressure, just’

10
kunyang
just
kantanhakey
in.a.simple.manner
panchan
side.dishes
hay:.
do:intimate.imp

Prepare just simple side dishes.’

11
yeki
here
ceki
there
mak
dm
ha-ci
do-nml
malko:.
not.to.do

‘Instead of making this and that.’

12 Son:
hh ku
that
cepen-ey:
last.time-at
ku
that
sengkatay
choir
cihwicanim
conductor
13
mosi-nuntey
host-while
ku
that
ton
money
kkway
fairly
tul-telakwu-yo.
cost-i.noticed-pol

‘hh (I) noticed that it was fairly expensive when (I)

hosted the choir conductor (at my place) last time.’

14 Mom:
kulem.
of.course
hh cyay
that.person
com
a.little
pwala:.
look:plain.imp

‘Of course. hh Loo:k at him.’

15
kule:m.( )
of.course
pissa-ci.
expensive-comm

‘Of course:. ( ) it’s (indeed) expensive.’

16 Son:

hhh hh

‘hhh hh’

As the son complains about the stress of the upcoming visit (lines 4, 6–7), his mother suggests he prepare only simple dishes (lines 8–11). The son continues to complain as he recollects the unexpectedly high cost of the last such visit he hosted (lines 12–13). In response, in line 14, his mother begins her turn with kulem, equivalent to ‘of course’ in English (Stivers 2011Stivers, Tanya 2011 “Morality and Question Design: ‘Of Course’ as Contesting a Presupposition of Askability.” In The Morality of Knowing in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jacob Steensig, 82–106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar), which treats the alternative, such an occasion costing less, as inconceivable. Furthermore, the mother constructs an imperatively formatted turn with po- ‘see’, but here the verb is used with the plain imperative (cyay com pwala ‘Look at him.’). Unlike the imperatively formatted turn in line 10, where the mother empathizes with the son’s concern and gives advice to solve the problem, here the mother is displaying disaffiliation with her son’s surprise at the high cost of hosting the elder. She thus distances herself from his inconceivable-to-her implication that such an occasion could cost less. Furthermore, the mother immediately underlines her disaffiliative stance in line 15 by firmly asserting the high cost with the sentence-ending suffix ci, which serves to display the speaker’s strong commitment toward the proposition (Lee 1999 1999 “A Discourse-Pragmatic Analysis of the Committal -Ci in Korean: A Synthetic Approach to the Form-Meaning Relation.” Journal of Pragmatics 31: 243–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar), as well as another kulem ‘of course’ (kulem pissa-ci ‘Of course, it is (indeed) expensive.’).

As shown in Excerpts (3)–(8), whether the imperatively formatted turns serve to mandate the recipient to carry out a concrete action (e.g., ‘Take that out for me.’) or to figuratively display the speaker’s attitude or stance toward the recipient or another party (e.g., ‘Look at him.’), the speaker’s choice of the intimate imperative or the plain imperative hinges on the interactional trajectory in which the imperative occurs and which it invokes and what action the speaker implements through the choice rather than the interpersonal relationship of the participants. This is clearly demonstrated in Excerpt (8), in which the mother deploys different imperatives: in line 14, when she disagrees with her son regarding the expected cost, she deploys the plain imperative. However, in line 10, when she gives advice to her son to alleviate his stress over preparing for the elder’s visit, she deploys the intimate imperative (‘Prepare just simple side dishes.’). The cases of imperatives implementing remote actions, such as providing advice as seen in line 10, will be examined further in the following section.

The examination of naturally occurring interactional data explains why intimate imperatives, and not plain imperatives, are dominantly used for here-and-now actions. Studies show that in requesting here-and-now actions (e.g., to be passed an object), the choice of imperative is warranted when the speakers are carrying out an on-going activity in which both parties are already engaged and aligned (Rossi 2012Rossi, Giovanni 2012 “Bilateral and Unilateral Requests: The Use of Imperatives and mi X? Interrogatives in Italian.” Discourse Processes 49: 426–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 2017 2017 “Secondary and Deviant Uses of the Imperative in Italian.” In Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 103–137. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). The intimate imperative is apt for such here-and-now actions as it helps construct turns that are aligned with another participant’s turns in terms of the action and activity they are engaged in. In contrast, the plain imperative, which projects a disaligned action and/or disaffiliative stance, is rarely observed when speakers are carrying out a joint activity or project.

4.Imperatives for remote actions

This section examines cases in which the two imperatives are deployed to formulate turns to implement remote actions, when the speaker asks or suggests the recipient perform an action at a later point in time. Imperatively formatted turns often occur in the contexts of giving advice and making ironic instructions. The following excerpts illustrate how the intimate and plain imperatives are distinct in their usage in these two contexts.

4.1Imperatives in the context of advice-giving

The differences between the two imperatives are again demonstrated when they are used in giving advice in response to another speaker’s troubles-telling or complaint talk. Let’s first consider an example of an intimate imperative usage between two friends. Before Excerpt (9) begins, Bum has been extensively telling Nam about the trouble he has been experiencing in an immigration-related process.

Excerpt 9.Give a call
01 Nam:
tayhak-i
college-nom
molu-lkka?
not.know-q

‘Would the college not know?’

02 Bum:
tayhak-ul
college-acc
nay-ka
i-nom
yeki-se
here-from
alapo-lyeko
find.out-to
kulay-ss-nuntey
do.so-pst-but
03
molu-n-tay:.
not.know-prs-hearsay

‘I tried to find out through the college,

but they say they don’t know.’

04 Nam:
financial
financial
aid
aid
office-ey
office-to
ka-twu
go-though
molla?
not.know:q

‘The financial aid office doesn’t know either?’

05 Bum:
e
no
keki-twu
there-either
molu-n-tay:.
not.know-prs-hearsay

‘No, they say they don’t know either.’

06 (1.0)
07 Nam:
kulem
then
ku
that
select--
select
select
selective
service
service
08
keki-ta
there-to
cenhwahay pwa
try:call:intimate.imp
kulem.
then

‘Then, give a call to the select- the selective service, then.’

09 Bum:
keki-n
there-top
kunikka
so
cenhwa-ka
phone-nom
eps-e.=cenhwa
not.have-dc
penho-ka
phone
ayey.
number-nom at.all

‘So, they don’t have any phones.

No phone numbers at all.’

10 Nam:

kulay?

be.so:q

‘Is that so?’

11 Bum:
e.
yes
phyenci-l
letter-acc
sse-ya toy-n-tay:.
write-must-prs-hearsay

‘Yes. They say (I) need to write a letter (to them).’

12 (0.5)
13 Bum:
com
a.bit
kuleh-ci:.
be.so-comm

‘The situation is a bit difficult.’

Bum is describing his trouble trying to find his selective service number. Such troubles-telling establishes advice-giving as a relevant next action by the addressee (Thompson and Couper-Kuhlen 2020Thompson, Sandra A., and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen 2020 “English Why Don’t You X as a Formulaic Expression.” In Fixed Expressions: Building Language Structure and Action, ed. by Tsuyoshi Ono, and Ritva Laury, 99–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 104), and indeed, Nam offers several ideas to try to help Bum solve his problem (lines 1–6). Nam finally advises Bum to directly call the relevant institution (lines 7–8), formulating this advice with the intimate imperative. Although the advice turns out not to be useful, it is nevertheless aligned with Bum’s troubles-telling as it displays Nam’s wish to help Bum find a solution to his problem.

As seen in Excerpt (9), as well as in Excerpt (8) (line 10), intimate imperatives are used when a speaker reports his or her trouble, and another speaker, taking the trouble as a problem to be solved, actively joins in finding a solution to the problem. Now let’s examine a case in which the plain imperative is used for giving advice between two friends. In the case of the intimate imperative, the advisor shows alignment, empathizing with the troubles-teller. In Excerpt (10), however, the advice is a disaffiliated response to the speaker’s trouble. The segment comes from a telephone call between two friends.

Excerpt 10.Just leave your hair tied up
01 Boa:
ni
you
meli
hair
ki-na?
long-q

‘Is your hair long?’

02 Ain:
e.
yes
na
i
mak
dm
phamahay-ya ha-nuntey:,
get.a.perm-must-but
michikeyss-ta.
crazy-dc

‘Yes, I need to get a perm. It’s driving me crazy.’

03
phama-l
perm-acc
hay-ya ha-lci
do-must-whether
mwe-l
what-acc
hay-ya ha-lci.
do-must-whether

‘I am not sure whether to get a perm or something else.’

04 Boa:
kunyang
just
mwuke ka iss-ela::↑
keep.it.tied.up-plain.imp

Just lea::ve↑ your hair tied up!

05 Ain:

kulayse?

then.what

‘Then what?’

06 Boa:

e?

huh

‘Huh?’

07 Ain:
ni-ka
you-nom
o-myen hay
come-when
cwu-llay?
do.for-q
yak
solution
sa
buy
kacko hh
and

‘When you come (here) are you going to give me a perm?

After buying (the perm) solution hh’

Ain expresses frustration with her long hair (‘It’s driving me crazy.’), and her need for a perm or some other measure (lines 2–3). Similar to troubles-telling, such complaining establishes advice-giving as the next relevant action (Thompson and Couper-Kuhlen 2020Thompson, Sandra A., and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen 2020 “English Why Don’t You X as a Formulaic Expression.” In Fixed Expressions: Building Language Structure and Action, ed. by Tsuyoshi Ono, and Ritva Laury, 99–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 104). In response, in line 4, Boa advises Ain to just tie her hair up. With this advice, Boa is not treating Ain’s trouble as an important problem; according to Boa, there is an easy fix, so Ain does not need to do anything particular. This engenders what Jefferson and Lee (1981)Jefferson, Gail, and John Lee 1981 “The Rejection of Advice: Managing the Problematic Convergence of a ‘Troubles-Telling’ and a ‘Service Encounter’.” Journal of Pragmatics 5 (5): 399–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar called “interactional asynchrony”: Ain takes her trouble seriously while Boa views it as unimportant. Boa formats her incongruent advice with the plain imperative. The subsequent interaction also shows a sharp contrast to the interactions in Excerpt (9), in which the intimate imperative was deployed. Boa’s advice receives challenge from the troubles-teller, Ain. In lines 5 and 7, Ain expresses her view that Boa’s suggestion would only be a temporary measure and asks whether Boa will be accountable for her hair. Thus, we see that the two imperative formats lead to diverging interactional trajectories. A teller of troubles does not challenge or problematize advice designed with the intimate imperative. On the other hand, advice designed with the plain imperative can engender different types of responses from the troubles-teller, as the plain imperative makes relevant that the two speakers are at odds in terms of the actions they are engaged in and/or the stances they hold.

The following excerpt shows another case in which the speakers are at odds with one another in regard to whether they view a problem as genuine trouble. This talk is between two sisters, Min and Joo.

Excerpt 11.Eat more
01 Min:
sal
weight
com
a.bit
ppacye-ss-e?
lose-pst-q

‘Did you lose some weight?’

02 Joo:

ani.

no

‘No.’

03 Min:

[kutaylo-ya?]

the.same-be:q

‘(You’re) the same?’

04 Joo:
[te
more
ccye-ss-e.]
gain-pst-dc

‘I gained more weight.’

05 Min:
te
more
ccye-ss-e?
gain-pst-q

‘You gained more weight?’

06 Joo:

e.

yes

‘Yes.

07 Min:
myech
how.many
pound
pound
naka?
weigh:q

‘How many pounds do you weigh?’

08 Joo:
molla.
not.know:dc
na
i
meli
hair
calu-ko siph-untey:,
cut-want.to-but

‘I don’t know. I want to cut my hair.’

09 Min:
keki
there
mommwukey
weight
cay-nun
measure-rl
ke
thing
iss-canh-a.
exist-you.know-dc

‘There’s a scale there.’

10 Joo:
e.
yes
payk--
hundred
payk
hundred
il.
one

‘Yes, (I’m) one hundred- one hundred and one pounds.’

11 Min:

payk il?

hundred one

‘One hundred and one?’

12 Joo:

e.

yes

‘Yes.’

13 Min:
kukey
that:nom
cci-n
gain-rl
ke-ya?
thing-be:q

‘You’re calling that a weight gain?’

14 Joo:

e.

yes

‘Yes.’

15 Min:
cham
gosh
na:
i
payk
hundred
il
one
pound-i-ntey
pound-be-but
ccye-ss-tay:. hhh
gain-pst-hearsay

‘Gosh, she says she gained weight

when she only weighs 101. hhh’

16
aiko::
gosh
ya
dm
com
a.little
MEK-ela .
eat-plain.imp

‘Go::sh, hey, EAT more.

17 Joo:

mek-e.

eat-dc

‘(I) eat.’

18 Min:
manhi
a.lot
mek-ko
eat-and
thunthunhay-ya-ci:.
be.strong-must-comm

‘You need to eat a lot and be strong.’

19 Joo:
steak
steak
twu
two
kay
cl
mek-ess-nuntey.
eat-pst-but

‘I ate two steaks.’

20 Min:
eyi:
nah
kyewu
only
twu
two
kay?
cl

‘Nah, only two (that’s not enough).’

When Joo self-deprecates about her weight gain (lines 1–12), Min rebukes Joo for portraying it as a problem (line 13, ‘You’re calling that a weight gain?’). She expands on her disapproval by reporting this news to her husband, who is next to her (line 15). She then tells Joo to eat more (line 16). As a response to Joo’s characterization of her weight gain as a problem, this is contradictory advice. The advice embodying disaffiliation toward the prior speaker’s troubles-telling is again designed with the plain imperative, not the intimate imperative. Similar to the interaction in Excerpt (10), the incongruent advice receives resistance from the troubles-teller (line 17, ‘I eat.’). Couper-Kuhlen and Thompson (2022)Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Sandra A. Thompson 2022 “Action Ascription and Deonticity in Everyday Advice-Giving Sequences.” In Action Ascription in Social Interaction, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann, and Michael Haugh, 183–207. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar found that advice formulated in the deontically strongest format, an imperative, is frequently met with resistance by the recipients. This observation resonates particularly well with the current data of advice-giving turns designed with the Korean plain imperative. As we have seen, in these excerpts, the advice-giver and the recipient hold different stances toward the trouble; accordingly, the recipient takes the advice to be disaffiliative and resists it.

Interestingly, the same speaker, Min, provides another suggestion to her younger sister, ten minutes prior to Excerpt (11). But in Excerpt (12), line 2, she deploys the intimate imperative to do so.

Excerpt 12.Give your hair a certain style
01 Joo:
na:
i
meli
hair
acikto
still
kil-e:.
long-dc

‘My hair is still long.’

02 Min
meli:
hair
com
a.little
ettehkey
how
com
a.little
hay
do:intimate.imp
ne:.
you

Give your hair a certain style.’

03 Joo:

ettehkey?

how

‘How?’

04 Min:
phama-lul
perm-acc
ha-tenci:,
go-or

‘Possibly get a perm or:,’

05 Joo:
HHH [sicipka-l
marry-rl
ttay]
time

‘HHH, when (I get) married.’

06 Min:

[calu-tenci:.]

cut-or

‘cut or (something).’

07 Joo:
enni-chelem
sister-like
sicipka-l
marry-rl
ttay
time
ha-lkkey.
do-will

‘(I) will (get a perm) when (I) get married like you.’

08 Min:
ung
yes
kulay.
right
ne-to
you-also
ama
probably
kwaynchanh-ul ke-ya.
alright-will-be:dc

‘Yes, right. It will probably suit you too.’

Joo informs Min that her hair is quite long, and Min advises her to have it styled. This advice is formulated as an intimate imperative turn (line 2), and it is aligned to and affiliated with the recipient’s prior turn, as borne out in the following exchange, where Joo and Min exchange ideas related to the advice, such as the possibility of getting a perm (lines 3–8). This hair advice and the subsequent interactional trajectory show a sharp contrast to Boa’s hair advice in Excerpt (10) (‘Just leave your hair tied up.’), which is met with challenge by the recipient; in Excerpt (12), both parties are jointly engaged in finding a solution. Excerpts (11) and (12) again confirm that the choice of imperatives is not explained solely by interpersonal social factors or politeness, as the same speaker deploys different imperative choices to the same recipient depending on the action implemented and stance conveyed in the course of the interaction.

4.2Ironic imperatives

As the plain imperatives routinely serve to display disaffiliation, they are readily deployed to express ironic criticism, as shown in the following excerpts. Excerpt (13) comes from a conversation between a younger brother and his older sister. When the sister makes an exaggerated report that everyone at her school smokes, the brother accuses her of smoking as well (lines 1–4). When the sister denies it, the brother accuses her of lying, and it turns into a jocular exchange in which they pretend that the sister really does smoke (lines 5–11).

Excerpt 13.
Tell Mom
01 Sis:
wuli
our
hakkyo-ey
school-at
tampay
cigarettes
an
not
phiwu-nun
smoke-rl
ay-tul
kid-pl
eps-nuntey,
not.exist-but

‘There is no one at my school who does not smoke.’

02 Bro:

cengmal?

really

‘Really?’

03 Sis:
salam-tul
person-pl
ta
all
phiwe.
smoke.dc

‘They all smoke.’

04 Bro:
nwuna
sister
tampay
cigarettes
phi-ci?
smoke-comm

‘Sister, you smoke cigarettes, don’t you?’

05 Sis:

ani hh

no

‘No. hh’

06 Bro:
>kecismalha-ci-ma.
lie-nml-do.not
[tampay
cigarettes
phi-ci?]
smoke-comm

‘Don’t lie. You smoke cigarettes, don’t you?’

07 Sis:
[hh ettehkey
how
al-ass-e?]
know-pst-q

‘hh How did you know?’

08 Bro:

e?

huh

‘Huh?’

09 Sis:
ettehkey
how
al-ass-e? hh
know-pst-q

‘How did you know? hh’

10 Bro:
e
oh
cengmal-i-ya?
real-be-q

‘Oh really?’

11 Sis:
eh:
oh
mian[hay.]
sorry:dc

‘Oh, I’m sorry.’

12 Bro:
[emma]-hanthey
mom-to
ilu-n-ta.
tell-prs-dc

I’m going to tell Mom.’

13 Sis:
>ill-ela↑
tell-plain.imp
ill-ela↑<
tell-plain.imp

‘Tell↑ (her), tell↑ (her)’

14 (0.2)
15 Bro:

illu-l ke-ya.

tell-will-dc

‘I am going to tell.’

16 Sis:

tsu tsu tsu aiko: ((Loud lip-smacking))

‘tut-tut tut-tut tut-tut go:sh.’

Still joking, the younger brother further threatens to tell their mother that the sister smokes (line 12). Note how his sister responds: She repeats the verb in the brother’s turn using the plain imperative form, and tells him to go ahead and tell their mother (line 13). On the surface, the sister may seem to be going along with the proposed action (telling their mother), but this is a case of what Aikhenvald (2010Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2010Imperatives and Commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar, 245) called the ironic imperative. The sister is not literally directing the brother to tell their mother, but expressing annoyance at his announced action (‘Go ahead and tell her, I don’t care.’). This ironic imperative is prosodically prominent, as the talk is rushed or compressed (marked by > <), and the plain imperatives are delivered in a high pitch (marked by ).

While the sister initially went along with her brother’s joke, admitting that she does smoke and even apologizing (lines 7, 9, 11), with her plain imperative formatted response from line 13, she is no longer co-participating in the joke. She does not pretend to be threatened or scared by her brother. After all, the threat is based on a bogus accusation. As the brother further vows to tell their mother, the sister makes a long lip-smacking sound displaying her disapproval and disaffiliation toward the brother, who continues to tease her (lines 15–16).

Excerpt (14) shows another case of the plain imperative deployed in an ironic imperative use. This is a conversation between two close acquaintances who recently finished their studies in the United States. They are discussing whether to stay or return to Korea. Sol is older than Eun.

Excerpt 14.Get scolded
01 Sol:
na-nun
i-top
kunyang
just
cwuku-la-ko
die-dc-qt
an
not
ka-llyekwu
go-to
02
ile-ko
like.this-and
pethingki-ko iss-nun
hold.up-in.the.state-rl
ke-ntey.
thing-but

‘I’m working my butt off so hard right now not to return to Korea.’

03 Eun:

kulay-yo?

be:so-pol

‘Is that so?’

04 Sol:

ung.

yes

‘Yes.’

05 Eun:
<na-nun
i-top
kunyang::
just
06
iltan
for.now
mac-ul
be.scolded-rl
may-nun
lash-top
ppali
quickly
mac-ca:.
be.scolded-prop

‘I’m just like, I would rather get scolded now.

07 Sol:

um

uh huh

‘Uh huh.’

08 Eun:
com
a.little
kulen
such
thayto-i-n kes kath-a-yo.
attitude-be-seem:like-dc-pol

‘My attitude is like that.’

09 Sol:
kulay:
yeah
may mac-ela::↑
be.scolded-plain.imp

‘Yeah, get sco::lded↑

10 Eun:
kulay:
yeah
ccokum
a.bit
aphu-keyss-ci:?
hurt-dct:re-comm

‘Yeah, it will hurt a bit, right?’

11 Sol:

ung.

yes

‘Yes.’

While Sol expresses her wish to stay in the United States, Eun displays her willingness to return to Korea (lines 1–8). Both are speaking in a joking manner: Sol exaggerates how hard she is working to stay, while Eun proclaims her willingness to return to Korea and “be scolded” (a euphemistic reference to difficulties she expects to face upon returning). Note how Sol responds using the plain imperative (line 9, ‘Yeah, get scolded.’). Similar to Excerpt (13), here Sol is not literally directing Eun to go through hardship, but mocking Eun for being willing to do so (‘Go ahead and get scolded if you want.’). In this way, Sol, who is trying so hard to remain in the United States, is disaffiliating with Eun.

As all the above excerpts have shown, the plain imperative is a marked form compared to the intimate imperative in terms of the actions it implements, the interactional trajectory in which it occurs or that it invokes, and the disaffiliative stance it displays. Likewise, the plain imperative is often prosodically more marked than the intimate imperative. The plain imperative is frequently delivered in a high pitch or with stress (Excerpts [5], [10], [13], [14]).

4.3Alternate imperative forms for discrete actions and stances

As we have seen in the data examined thus far, the two types of imperative turns perform different actions and pursue diverging interactional trajectories. Let’s revisit Excerpts (1) and (2) to verify these findings. Excerpt (1), repeated here, shows a case in which the recipient uses the intimate imperative. The interaction occurs toward the end of a telephone call between two friends of the same age.

Excerpt 1.

Call (me)

01 A:
nacwungey hh
later
tto hh
again
cenhwaha-[lkey. hh
call-will

I will call (you) later hh again. hh’

02 B:
[e
yes
kulay hh
okay

‘Yes, okay. hh’

03 B:
kulay hh
okay
kulem
then
nacwungey
later
tto
again
cenhwa
call
hay::.
do: intimate.imp

‘Okay, hh then, ca::ll (me) later again.’

04 A:

e:[:.

yes

‘Yes.’

05 B:

[e.

yes

‘Yes.’

Speaker A promises that she will call again later (‘I will call (you) later again.’). In response, speaker B displays agreement (‘Yes, okay.’), then repeats, in an intimate imperative form, exactly what speaker A just promised (‘Call (me) later again.’). B not only endorses, but further directs A to follow through with her just-announced intention. As a result, B’s imperative turn elicits a compliance response from A (line 4).

Next, Excerpt (2) is part (lines 11–15) of the longer sequence of interaction in Excerpt (15). Let’s examine in detail how the choice of a plain imperative here is different from the choice of the intimate imperative in Excerpt (1).

Excerpt 15.Call (me)
01 A:
ne
your
schedule-i
schedule-nom
ettehkey
how
toy-ni:?
become-q

‘What’s your (working) schedule like?’

02 B:
na
me
mwe?
what
[ilha-nun
work-rl
schedule?
schedule

‘Me, what? (My) work schedule?’

03 A:
[ne--
you
ne
you
cenhwaha-ki
to.call-nml
hanpen
once
himtul-(hh)-tela.
difficult-i:noticed

‘You- it has been difficult to reach you by phone.’

04 B:
<na:,
i
na-n
i-top
pothong (.)
usually
nuckey
late
iss-eya--
stay-must
05
nuckey
late
ha-myen
call-if
cip-ey
home-at
iss-ci.
stay-comm

‘I, I’m usually at home if you call me late, late.’

((13 minutes later))

06 A:
ani::,
well
encey:
when
ne
you
ka-l
go-rl
ttay:,
time

‘Well, when you visit (Korea),’

07 B:

ung.

‘Uh huh.’

08 A:
na--
i
na-twu:
i-too
wuli-twu
we-too
sikan
time
macchwe-se
match-and
kathi
together
ka-myeun:,
go-if

‘Me- me too, us too, if we can match our schedule and go together,’

09 B:
[ kulay :.
right
ung
yeah
kulay:.]
right

‘Ri:ght. Yeah, ri:ght.’

10 A:
[keki-se
there-at
po-myen
see-then
toy-canha-e
become-you:know-dc
tto.]
again

‘we can then see each other again.’

11 B:
ung
yeah
yenlakha-lkey.
contact-will

‘Yeah. I will keep in touch.’

12 A:
ung
yeah
kulay
okay
<ya↑
dm

‘Yeah, okay. Hey!’

13 B:

um

‘Yeah.’

14 A:
ceki
dm
mwe-ni?
what-q
cenhwa--
phone
cenhwa
phone
com
a.little
hay:la::
do:plain.imp
ne-twu::
you-too

‘Um, you know what? Call- Ca::ll (me). You too:: (should call me)!’

15 B:
kulay
okay
[al-ass-e.]
understand-pst-dc

‘Okay, I will.’

16 A:
[yenlak
contact
com
a.little
ha-ko.]
do-and

‘(You) should keep in touch.’

17 B:

ung

‘Okay.’

At the beginning of this talk, A complains that B has been difficult to reach by phone (lines 1–5). A’s complaining stance re-emerges toward the end of the call. After A and B agree to coordinate their trips to Korea (lines 6–10), B promises that she will contact A (line 11 ‘I will keep in touch.’). Similar to Excerpt (1), in response to the promise, A displays agreement (line 12 ‘Yeah, okay.’), but then abruptly seeks B’s attention with the discourse particle ya ‘Hey!’, indexing a disjunctive transition (Kim 2018Kim, Mary Shin 2018 “The Korean Vocative Interjection Ya ‘Hey’ Beyond Its Summoning Action.” In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 25, ed. by Shin Fukuda, Mary Shin Kim, and Mee-Jeong Park, 341–354. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar; Kim et al. 2021Kim, Mary Shin, Stephanie Hyeri Kim, and Sung-Ock Sohn 2021 “The Korean Discourse Particle Ya Across Multiple Turn Positions: An Interactional Resource for Turn-taking and Stance-taking.” Journal of Pragmatics 186: 251–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). A then cries out to B to call her, deploying the plain imperative (line 14). This plain imperative turn clearly conveys a different action and stance than the intimate imperative in Excerpt (1). While the intimate imperative supports and encourages the action the prior speaker has announced, the plain imperative demands the other speaker follow through on her promise. A makes her complaining, disaffiliative stance evident throughout their interaction, first bringing up the difficulty of reaching B (lines 1–5) and then making it clear that B has not tried as hard as A to keep in touch (line 14, ‘You too (should call me).’). Even after B agrees (line 15), A reiterates the instruction (line 16). Although it was B who initially said she would keep in touch (line 11), A keeps pressing the point, and she deploys the plain imperative to do so (e.g., ‘You better call me!’).

On the surface, the imperative turn in Excerpt (15) resembles the one in Excerpt (1). However, the two imperatives show differences in terms of the actions they implement, the interactional trajectories in which they occur and that they invoke, and the stances they display.

The two imperatives are better understood as alternative grammatical resources that serve particular interactional pragmatic functions than as markers that index levels of (im)politeness or social relationships.

5.Conclusion

This examination of two imperative forms at different speech levels, the intimate imperative and the plain imperative, in naturally occurring conversational data demonstrates that social and interpersonal factors such as age and social power relations between speakers are insufficient to explain the speakers’ choice of imperative or warrant the use of one imperative form over the other. In naturally occurring talk, speakers with close relationships intermix the plain speech level and the intimate speech level. Turns with the two different imperatives are best understood as separate action formats that pursue divergent interactional trajectories: A speaker deploys the intimate imperative in constructing turns that are aligned with another participant’s turn in terms of the action and activity they are engaged in, while a speaker uses the plain imperative in formulating a disaligned or divergent move. This explains why intimate imperatives are dominantly used in carrying out here-and-now requests in on-going activities in which both parties are already engaged and aligned and why plain imperatives are rarely observed when speakers are carrying out a joint activity or project. The two imperative forms are distinct not only in terms of the actions and interactional trajectories in which they are involved, but with regard to the stances they convey. A speaker chooses the plain imperative when s/he displays disaffiliation toward the recipient or the matter being discussed at the moment. The plain imperative is often prosodically more marked than the intimate imperative. Accordingly, in the case of a plain imperative turn delivering a disaligned move and/or disaffiliative stance, speakers’ disagreements or challenges continue in the ensuing talk. Whether the imperatively formatted turns implement here-and-now or remote actions or whether they serve to mandate the recipient to carry out a concrete action or to figuratively display the speaker’s attitude or stance toward the recipient or another party, the two imperatives’ differences are consistently observed.

By uncovering the differences between these two imperative turn types, this study has again demonstrated the importance of understanding imperatives as more than indexes of politeness or interpersonal relationships. Imperatives reflect the routine ways speakers take part in others’ actions and affairs in social interaction. The forms may serve to endorse and advance others’ (planned) actions, or they may function to criticize or meddle in others’ affairs by challenging the recipients’ actions. The different choices of imperative forms reflect the different actions and stances speakers choose to exercise in regard to others in their interactions.

Funding

This research was supported by the Academy of Korean Studies (AKS-2018-R09).

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the two anonymous reviewers for their detailed and insightful comments and suggestions. All remaining errors are mine.

Note

1.Parts of Excerpt (7) are discussed by Kuroshima et al. (2021Kuroshima, Satomi, Stephanie Hyeri Kim, Kaoru Hayano, Mary Shin Kim, and Seung Hee Lee 2021 “When OKAY Is Repeated: Closing the Talk So Far in Korean and Japanese Conversations.” In Okay Across Languages: Toward a Comparative Approach to Its Use in Talk-in-Interaction, ed. by Emma Betz, Arnulf Deppermann, Lorenza Mondada, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 235–265. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 249–251) in analyzing the usage of the duplicated okay (line 27).

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
2010Imperatives and Commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House, and Gabriele Kasper
1989Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Lucien
2015 “Honorifics and Politeness.” In The Handbook of Korean Linguistics, ed. by Lucien Brown, and Jaehoon Yoon, 303–319. West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Byon, Andrew
2001 “The Communicative Act of Requests: Interlanguage Features of American KFL Learners.” PhD diss. University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting
2018Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Sandra A. Thompson
2022 “Action Ascription and Deonticity in Everyday Advice-Giving Sequences.” In Action Ascription in Social Interaction, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann, and Michael Haugh, 183–207. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf
2018 “Instruction Practices in German Driving Lessons: Differential Uses of Declaratives and Imperatives.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 28 (2): 265–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
2014 “Requesting – From Speech Act to Recruitment Requesting.” In Requesting in Social Interaction, ed. by Paul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 1–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness, and Asta Cekaite
2013 “Calibration in Directive/Response Sequences in Family Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 46 (1): 122–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Han, Kil
2004Hyondae uri mal ui mach’im ssikkut yon’gu [A study on Korean sentence-enders]. Seoul: Yeklak.Google Scholar
Heinemann, Trine, and Jakob Steensig
2017 “Three Imperative Action Formats in Danish Talk-in-Interaction.” In Sorjonen et al. 2017, 139–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hickey, Leo, and Miranda Stewart
2005Politeness in Europe. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail, and John Lee
1981 “The Rejection of Advice: Managing the Problematic Convergence of a ‘Troubles-Telling’ and a ‘Service Encounter’.” Journal of Pragmatics 5 (5): 399–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Joungsook, Dongho Park, Byungkyu Lee, Hyeyoung Lee, Heejung Jung, Jungsoon Choi, and Yong Huh
2005Oegugin ul wihan han’gugo munpop 1 [Korean grammar for foreign language learners 1]. Seoul: Communication Books.Google Scholar
Kim, Mary Shin
2018 “The Korean Vocative Interjection Ya ‘Hey’ Beyond Its Summoning Action.” In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 25, ed. by Shin Fukuda, Mary Shin Kim, and Mee-Jeong Park, 341–354. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
2020 “Imperative Requests in Korean Interaction.” In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 26, ed. by Shoichi Iwasaki, Susan Strauss, Shin Fukuda, Suh-Ah Jun, Sung-Ock Sohn, and Kie Zuraw, 373–386. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Kim, Mary Shin, Stephanie Hyeri Kim, and Sung-Ock Sohn
2021 “The Korean Discourse Particle Ya Across Multiple Turn Positions: An Interactional Resource for Turn-taking and Stance-taking.” Journal of Pragmatics 186: 251–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Stephanie Hyeri, and Mary Shin Kim
2020 “Requesting Here-and-Now Actions with Two Imperative Formats in Korean Interaction.” In Mobilizing Others: Grammar and Lexis within Larger Activities, ed. by Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm, Emma Betz, and Peter Golato, 19–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koo, Dohee
2001 “Realisations of Two Speech Acts of Heritage Learners of Korean: Requests and Apology Strategies.” PhD diss. Ohio State University.
Kuroshima, Satomi, Stephanie Hyeri Kim, Kaoru Hayano, Mary Shin Kim, and Seung Hee Lee
2021 “When OKAY Is Repeated: Closing the Talk So Far in Korean and Japanese Conversations.” In Okay Across Languages: Toward a Comparative Approach to Its Use in Talk-in-Interaction, ed. by Emma Betz, Arnulf Deppermann, Lorenza Mondada, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 235–265. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Hyo Sang
1994 “Discourse-Pragmatic Functions of Sentence-type Suffixes in Informal Discourse in Korean.” In Theoretical Issues in Korean Linguistics, ed. by Young-Key Kim-Renaud, 517–539. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
1999 “A Discourse-Pragmatic Analysis of the Committal -Ci in Korean: A Synthetic Approach to the Form-Meaning Relation.” Journal of Pragmatics 31: 243–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza
2017 “Precision Timing and Timed Embeddedness of Imperatives in Embodied Courses of Action: Examples from French.” In Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 65–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson
1996Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Park, Young Jun
1994Myongnyongmun ui kugosachok yon’gu [A study on Korean imperative constructions]. Seoul: Kwukhak calyowen.Google Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni
2012 “Bilateral and Unilateral Requests: The Use of Imperatives and mi X? Interrogatives in Italian.” Discourse Processes 49: 426–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 “Secondary and Deviant Uses of the Imperative in Italian.” In Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 103–137. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rue, Yong Ju, Grace Zhang, and Kyu Shin
2007 “Request Strategies in Korean.” In Proceedings of the Fifth Biennial Korean Studies Association of Australasia Conference, ed. by Korean Studies Association of Australasia, Kyu Suk Shin, and Hyun Chang, 112–119. Perth: Curtin University of Technology.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50: 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
2007Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sohn, Ho-Min
1994Korean. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
1999The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
2017 “Imperatives and Responsiveness in Finnish Conversation.” In Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 241–270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
eds. 2017Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya
2011 “Morality and Question Design: ‘Of Course’ as Contesting a Presupposition of Askability.” In The Morality of Knowing in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jacob Steensig, 82–106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen, Emma Betz, and Peter Golato
eds. 2020Mobilizing Others: Grammar and Lexis within Larger Activities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
2020 “English Why Don’t You X as a Formulaic Expression.” In Fixed Expressions: Building Language Structure and Action, ed. by Tsuyoshi Ono, and Ritva Laury, 99–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wootton, Anthony
1997Interaction and the Development of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar

Appendix A.Abbreviations

acc

Accusative

ah

Addressee honorific

cl

Numeral classifier

comm

Committal

dc

Declarative suffix

dct:re

Deductive reasoning

dm

Discourse marker

fr

Factual realization

imp

Imperative

nml

Nominalizer

nom

Nominative

pl

Plural suffix

pol

Polite speech level

prop

Propositive

prs

Present

pst

Past suffix

q

Question marker

qt

Quotative particle

rl

Relativizer suffix

sh

Subject honorific

top

Topic marker

Appendix B.Conversation-analytic transcript symbols

. Falling intonation
? Rising intonation
¿ A pitch rise that is stronger than a comma but weaker than a question mark
, Continuing intonation
: Inflected rising intonation
(.) Micropause
(1.0) Numbers in parentheses indicate silence
: Lengthened syllable
-- Sudden cut off
= No gap between the two utterances
hh Laughter
word Underlining indicates some form of stress or emphasis
WOrd Upper case indicates loud talk
>word< Word uttered at a faster pace
Raised pitch or higher voice
Marked step down in pitch
(( )) Transcriber’s comments
(word) Word in doubt
[ The beginning of overlapping
] The end of overlapping
* * Each participant’s embodied actions are delimited by the use of the same symbol.
Ara: Speaker identification (pseudonym or label)
ara Participant doing the embodied action is identified when she is not the speaker.

Address for correspondence

Mary Shin Kim

Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures

University of Hawaii at Manoa

1890 East-West Road

Honolulu, HI 96822

USA

[email protected]

Biographical notes

Mary Shin Kim (PhD University of California, Los Angeles) is Associate Professor in the Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Her research areas are conversation analysis, interactional linguistics, pragmatics, and second language pedagogy. She has published in a variety of journals, including Discourse Processes, Discourse Studies, Journal of Pragmatics, and Research on Language and Social Interaction.