Strategically Acknowledging Roughness: The Tale of the Two Preemptive Discourse Markers in Korean
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1605.03Keywords:
discourse marker, preemptive strategy, self-deprecation, grammaticalizationAbstract
Korean has two mitigating discourse markers sharing the source lexeme mak ‘coarse(ly)’, i.e., makilay and makmallo. The DM makilay, literally meaning ‘X rashly says like this’, presents a negative comment on the speaker’s own statement, thus signaling that they are aware of the inappropriateness of their own utterance (Rhee, 2013). Similarly, the DM makmallo, literally ‘with crude words’, prefaces an unrefined expression, conveying the message: ‘I already know my word choice in the following statement is crude, so don’t criticize me’, the strategy being to preempt criticism from the addressee who would likely find the question or statement too extreme and inordinate (Rhee, 2019). The development of these DMs reveals intriguing cognitive and discursive strategies: (i) meta-discursive strategies in which the speaker is monitoring their own utterances, (ii) shifted perspectivization wherein an imaginary third-party’s negative evaluative viewpoint is adopted, (iii) rhetorical strategies of presenting assertions or questions that are extreme to the point of inordinateness but thus more forceful and persuasive, and (iv) elaborate intersubjectification in that the speaker is attenuating their own talk in a face-threatening act via self-deprecation.
References
Ahn, J. H. (1992). A study of discourse markers in Korean. Mal, 17, 21-37.
Bakhtin, M. M., (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.), V. W. McGee (Translater), University of Texas Press.
Beeching, K. (2002). Gender, politeness and pragmatic particles in French. John Benjamins.
Beeching, K. (2009). Procatalepsis and the etymology of hedging and boosting particles. In M.-B. M. Hansen & J. Visconti (Eds.), Current trends in diachronic semantics and pragmatics (pp. 81-105). Emerald Group.
Beeching, K. & Detges, U. (2014). Introduction. In K. Beeching & U/ Detges (Eds.), Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change (pp. 1–23). Brill.
Brinton, L. J. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Mouton.
Brinton, L. J. (2008). The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge University Press.
Brinton, L. J. & Traugott, E. C. (2005). Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
Buchstaller, I. (2014). Quotatives: New trends and sociolinguistic implications. Wiley Blackwell.
Choi, H.-C. & Kim, M.-R. (1997). Wulimal Ewensacen [A Korean etymological dictionary]. Thayhaksa.
Choi, J. B. (2007). A corpus-based discourse analysis of Korean discourse markers: An analysis of spoken and written use. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Corum, C. A. (1975). Pragmatic analysis of parenthetic adjuncts. Chicago Linguistic Society, 11, 133-141.
Culpeper, J. & Kytö, M. (2010). Early Modern English dialogues: Spoken interaction as writing. Cambridge University Press.
Davidse, K., Vandelanotte, L., & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.). (2010). Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization. Mouton de Gruyter.
Degand, L. (2014). So very fast then: Discourse markers at left and right periphery in spoken French. In K. Beeching & U. Detges (Eds.), Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change (pp. 151–178). Brill.
Degand, L. & Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. (2011). Introduction: Grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification of discourse markers. Linguistics, 49(2), 287-294. doi: 10.1515/LING.2011.008
Dehé, N. & Kavalova, Y. (Eds.) (2007). Parentheticals. Benjamins.
Fischer, K. (Ed.). (2006). Approaches to discourse particles. Elsevier.
Fraser, B. (1988). Types of English discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 38, 19-33.
Fraser, B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 383-95.
Fraser, B. (2006). Toward a theory of discourse markers. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 189-204). Elsevier.
Golato, A. (2012). Impersonal quotation and hypothetical discourse. In I. Buchstaller & I. Van Alphen (Eds.), Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 3-36). Benjamins.
Grieve, J. (1996). Dictionary of contemporary French connectors. Routledge.
Haiman, J. (1998). Talk is cheap: Sarcasm, alienation, and the evolution of language. Oxford University Press.
Hancil, S. (2013). Introduction. In S. Hancil & D. Hirst (Eds.), Prosody and iconicity (pp. 1-31). John Benjamins.
Heine, B., Kaltenböck, G., Kuteva, T., & Long, H. (2017). Cooptation as a discourse strategy. Journal of Linguistics, 55(4), 813-856. doi: 10.1515/ling-2017-0012
Heine, B., Kaltenböck, G., Kuteva, T., & Long, H. (2021). On the rise of discourse markers. Cambridge University Press.
Horie, K. (2012). The interactional origin of nominal predicate structure in Japanese: A comparative and historical pragmatic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 663-679. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.020
Kaltenböck, G. & Heine, B. (2014). Sentence grammar vs. thetical grammar: Two competing domains? In B. MacWhinney, A. Malchukov & E. Moravcsik (Eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage (pp. 348-363). Oxford University Press.
Kaltenböck, G., Heine, B. & Kuteva, T. (2011). On thetical grammar. Studies in Language, 35(4), 848-93. doi: 10.1075/sl.35.4.03kal
Kim, M. S., Rhee, S. & Smith, H. Y. (2021). The Korean discourse particle kulssey across discreet positions and contexts in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 182, 16-41. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.06.002
Kim, P. (2020). A study of how to grammatically end sentences in spoken Korean. Doctoral dissertation, Seoul National University.
Kim, S. H. & Sohn, S.-O. (2015). Grammar as an emergent response to interactional needs: A study of final kuntey ‘but’ in Korean conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 83, 73-90. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.04.011
Kim, T.-Y. (2000). A type of discourse particle and changed discourse particle in Korean. Urimalgeul, 19, 1-24.
Koo, H. J. (2004). A study on aspects of politeness strategy. Discourse and Cognition, 11(3), 1-23.
Koo, H. J. (2010). Fused paradigms: Grammaticalization approach to extension of conditional markers. Han-Geul, 287, 45–71.
Koo, H. J. (2015). On discourse strategy of hypothetical quotatives in Korean. Discourse and Cognition, 22(2), 1-27. doi: 10.15718/discog.2015.22.2.1
Koo, H. J. (2018). Hankwuke tamhwaphyoci yenkwuuy tonghyangkwa cenmang [Research trends and prospect of Korean discourse markers]. In Y.-K. Shin et al. (Eds.) Hankwuke yenkwuuy saylowun hulum [New research trends of Korean] (pp. 221-255). Pakijong Publishing.
Koo, H. J. & Rhee, S. (2013). On an emerging paradigm of sentence-final particles of discontent: A grammaticalization perspective. Language Sciences, 37, 70-89. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2012.07.002
Lee, H.-G. (1996). The pragmatics of the discourse particle kuray in Korean. Discourse and Cognition, 3, 1-26.
Lee, W.-P. (1995). Uycikamthansa yey, kulssey, ani-uy tamhwapwunsek [A discourse analysis of volitional exclamatives yey, kulssey, and ani] Sacenphyenchanhak Yenkwu, 5/6, 164-218. Center for Language Information and Development, Yonsei University.
Mišković-Luković, M., Dedaić, M. N. &, Polomac, V. (2009). The meaning and interpretation of the Serbian discourse marker BRE. Journal of Pragmatics, 87, 18-30. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.07.004
Narrog, H. (2010). (Inter)subjectification in the domain of modality and mood: Concepts and cross-linguistic realities. In K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte, & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (pp. 385-429). Mouton.
Onodera, N. O. (2007). Interplay of (inter)subjectivity and social norm. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 8(2), 239–267. doi: 10.1075/jhp.8.2.05ono
Onodera, N. O. & Traugott, E. C. (2016). Periphery: Diachronic and cross-linguistics approaches. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 17(2), 163–177. doi: 10.1075/jhp.17.2.01ono
Östman, J.-O. (1982). The symbolic relationship between pragmatic particles and impromptu speech. In N. E. Enkvist (Ed.), Impromptu speech: A symposium (pp. 147-177). Åbo Akademi.
Palacas, A. L. (1989). Parentheticals and personal voice. Written Communication, 6, 506-527.
Rhee, S. (2009). Through a borrowed mouth: Reported speech and subjectification in Korean. LACUS Forum, 34, 201-210.
Rhee, S. (2013). “I know I'm shameless to say this”: Grammaticalization of the mitigating discourse marker makilay in Korean. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 97, 480-486. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.262
Rhee, S. (2016a). From quoting to reporting to stance-marking: Rhetorical strategies and intersubjectification of reportative. Language Sciences, 55, 36-54. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2016.02.003
Rhee, S. (2016b). LP and RP in the development of discourse markers from 'what' in Korean. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 17(2), 255-281. doi: 10.1075/jhp.17.2.05rhe
Rhee, S. (2019). Strategically acknowledging roughness: The tale of the two discourse markers in Korean. Conference Handbook, The 13th Annual Conference on Asian Studies (ACAS), Palacký University, Olomouc, Czech Republic.
Rhee, S. (2020a). On determinants of discourse marker functions: Grammaticalization and discourse-analytic perspectives. Linguistic Research, 37(2), 289-325. doi: 10.17250/khisli.37.2.202006.005
Rhee, S. (2020b). The power of the unspoken: Ellipsis and grammaticalization in Korean and beyond. Studies in Linguistics, 56, 1-36. doi: 10.17002/sil.56.202007.1
Rhee, S. (2020c). On the many faces of coarseness: The case of the Korean mak ‘coarsely’. Journal of Pragmatics, 170, 396-412. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.09.025
Rhee, S. & Koo, H. J. (2021). On divergent paths and functions of 'background'-based discourse markers in Korean. In A. Haselow & S. Hancil (Eds.), Studies at the grammar-discourse interface (pp. 77-100). John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.219.03rhe
Rhee, S. & Zhang, L. (2024). The way of the truth: The case of Korean discourse marker cincca in comparison with Chinese discourse markers zhenshi and zhende. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 28(4), 818-842. doi: 10.11363/2687-0088-40500
Sansò, A. (2024). Monologization and the emergence of discourse markers. Paper presented at the 8th Discourse Markers in Romance Languages Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, June 19-21, 2024.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press.
Schourup, L. C. (1985). Common discourse particles in English conversation. Garland Publishing.
Sohn, S.-O. S. (2016). Development of the discourse marker kulentey (‘but, by the way’) in Korean: A diachronic and synchronic perspective. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 17(2), 231-254. doi: 10.1075/jhp.17.2.04soh
Song, I. (2013). Functions and prosodic features of discourse marker mweo. Korean Linguistics, 58, 83-106.
Thompson, S. A. & Mulac, A. (1991). A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, 2 volumes (vol. 2, pp. 313-329). Benjamins.
Traugott, E. C. (2014). Intersubjectification and clause periphery. In L. Brems, L. Ghesquière & F. Van de Velde (Eds.), Intersubjectivity and intersubjectification in grammar and discourse (pp. 7–27). John Benjamins.
Traugott, E. C. & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge University Press.
Vološinov, V. N. (1930). Marxism and the philosophy of language. L. Matejka & I. R. Titunik (translators) from Russian Marksizm i filosofija jazyka, in 1973. Harvard University Press.
Watts, R. J. (1989). Taking the pitcher to the ‘well’: Native speakers’ perception of their use of discourse markers in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 13, 203-37.
