Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T10:37:07.845Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 17 - Subjectivity and Intersubjectivity in Korean Grammar

from Part IV - Semantics and Pragmatics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2022

By
Ho-min Sohn
Edited by
Sungdai Cho  and
John Whitman
Sungdai Cho
Affiliation:
Binghamton University, State University of New York
John Whitman
Affiliation:
Cornell University, New York
Get access

Summary

Chapter 17 aims to give an integrated account of how subjectivity and intersubjectivity are coded in Korean sentence endings, how such suffixes are diachronically derived from their source constructions, and what typological and socio-cultural factors motivate the emergence and proliferation of such suffixes. The chapter surveys how suffixes index the speaker or both the speaker and addressee as an integral component in their semantic structure. It then examines how such (inter)subjective inflectional suffixes have diachronically been grammaticalized from non-subjective source constructions. The chapter shows that in Korean and in other languages, subjectification tends to lead to intersubjectification and not vice versa. Finally, the chapter argues that the relatively extensive diversity of inflectional suffixes in Korean, especially intersubjective suffixes, is due to two facts: 1) typologically head-final syntax and a typical agglutinative morphology and 2) the time-honored cultural values of hierarchism and collectivism as well as recent dynamic socio-economic mobilities in Korean society and culture.

Keywords

(inter)subjectivity(inter)subjectificationgrammaticalizationhonorificsmodalsevidentialsperformativeshierarchismcollectivism
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Korean Linguistics , pp. 489 - 523
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahn, Mikyung, and Yap, Foong Ha. 2014. On the development of Korean SAY evidentials and their extended pragmatic functions. Diachronica 31(3): 299–336.Google Scholar
Ahn, Mikyung, and Yap, Foong Ha. 2015. Evidentiality in interaction: A pragmatic analysis of Korean hearsay evidential markers. Studies in Language 39(1): 46–84.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., ed. 2018. The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
An, Juho. 2003. Inyongmun-kwa inyong phyoci-uy munpephwa-ey tayhan yenkwu [A study on the grammaticalization of quoted sentences and quoting markers]. Discourse and Cognition 10: 1.Google Scholar
An, Pyong-hi. 1961. Cwuchey kyemyang-pep uy cepmisa -“sŏp” ey tayha.ye [On the humilitative suffix -sŏp]. Cintan Hakpo (Seoul) 22: 103–66.Google Scholar
An, Pyong-hi. 1982. Cwungsey kwuke-uy kyem.yang-pep yenkwu-ey tayhan panseng [Reflections on the studies of the Middle Korean humilitative suffix]. Kwukehak 11: 1–24.Google Scholar
Athanasiadou, Angeliki, Canakis, Costa, and Cornillie, Bert, eds.. 2006. Subjectification: Various Paths to Subjectivity. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Emile. 1971. Subjectivity in language. In Problems in General Linguistics. Translated by Meek, Mary E. and Gables, Coral. Florida: University of Miami Press. Original French publication in 1958.Google Scholar
Brown, P., and Levinson, S.. 1987. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R., and Pagliuca, W.. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L., and Hopper, P., eds. 2002. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chae, Yunghee. 1998. Tamhwa-ey ssuinun “-ketun”-uy hwayongcek kinung [The pragmatic function of -ketun used in discourse]. Hankwuke Uymihak 3: 159–77.Google Scholar
Cho, Minha. 2011. “-nuntey”-uy congkyel kinung-kwa ekyang-uy yekhal [The ending function of -nuntey and the role of intonation]. Wuli Emun Yenkwu 4.Google Scholar
Choi, Dong-Ju. 1995. Kwuke sisang cheykyey-uy thongsicek pyenhwa-ey kwanhan yenkwu [A study on the diachronic changes of the Korean tense/aspect system]. Ph.D. dissertation in linguistics. Seoul National University.Google Scholar
Choi, Dong-Ju. 2009. Congkyel emi “-lkel”-uy kinung-kwa munpepcek thukseng [The function and grammatical characteristics of the sentence ender -lkel]. Kwukehak 54: 226–50.Google Scholar
Chung, Kyung-Sook. 2005. Space in tense: The interaction of tense, aspect, evidentiality, and speech act in Korean. Ph.D. dissertation, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
Cuykens, H., Davidse, K., and Vandelanotte, L.. 2010. Introduction. In Davidse, Vandelanotte, and Cuyckens, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
Davidse, K., Vandelanotte, L., and Cuyckens, H., eds. 2010. Subjectification. Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, and Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2006. Coming to terms with subjectivity. Cognitive Linguistics 17: 365–92.Google Scholar
Ha, Chigeun. 2003. “tey” ccaimwel-uy munpephwa kwaceng [Grammaticalization processes of tey constructions]. Hangeul 216: 97–121.Google Scholar
Ha, Chigeun. 2006. “-ci” ccaimwel-uy munpephwa hyensang yenkwu [A study on the grammaticalization phenomena of -ci constructions]. Wulimal Yenkwu 18: 27–55.Google Scholar
Han, Dong-wan. 1986. Kwake sicey “-ess”-uy thongsiloncek kochal [A diachronic study of the past tense -ess]. Kwukehak 15: 217–47.Google Scholar
Heo, Jae-young. 2008. Nophim-uy cosa “yo”-uy munpephwa [Grammaticalization of the politeness particle yo]. Hanmal Yenkwu 23: 473–93.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In Traugott, E. C. and Heine, B., eds., Approaches to Grammaticalization, I and II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 17–36.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J., and Traugott, E. C.. 2003. Grammaticalization (second edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huh, Woong. 1972. Cwungsey kwuke yenkwu [A study of Middle Korean]. Seoul: Cengum-sa.Google Scholar
Huh, Woong. 1975. Wuli yeys malpon [A grammar of Early Korean]. Seoul: Kwahak-sa.Google Scholar
Huh, Woong. 1982. Hankwukmal ttaymaykimpep-uy keleon palcachwi (Footsteps of the Korean tense system). Hangeul 178: 3–51.Google Scholar
Huh, Woong. 1984. Kwukehak. Seoul: Saym Munhwasa.Google Scholar
Huh, Woong. 1987. Kwuke ttaymaykimpep-uy pyenchensa [An evolutionary history of the Korean tense system]. Seoul: Saym Munhwasa.Google Scholar
Im, Dong-hun. 2001. “keyss”-uy yongpep-kwa ku yeksacek haysek [Usage of keyss and its historical interpretation]. Kwukwhak 37: 115–47.Google Scholar
Im, Dong-hun. 2008. Hankwuke-uy sepep-kwa yangthay cheykyey [A system of moods and modality in Korean]. Hankwuke Uymihak 26: 211–49.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: W. W. Norton and Company Ltd.Google Scholar
Ju, Hee, and Sohn, Sung-Ock. 2011. Sequential context of -canh-a(yo): Hearers’ perspective. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 20: 1–15.Google Scholar
Kang, Hyun-hwa. 2008. “-ulkel”-uy thukseng-kwa hwuhoy phyohyen-uy yangsang [Properties of -ulkel and expressions of regret]. Bilingual Linguistics 38: 43–68.Google Scholar
Kang, Sujin. 2009. “-keyss”-uy munpephwa-ey tayhan inci uymiloncek selmyeng [A cognitive semantic account of grammaticalization of keyss]. Hankwuke Uymihak 29: 1–27.Google Scholar
Kawanishi, Y., and Sohn, Sung-Ock. 1993. The grammaticalization of Korean negation: A semantic-pragmatic analysis of -canh-. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics V: 552–61.Google Scholar
Kim, Hong-bum. 1987. “-tamyense”, “-tako”, “-tani”-uy kwuco-wa uymi [Structures and meanings of -tamyense, -tako, and -tani]. Mal 12: 83–7.Google Scholar
Kim, Mary Shin. 2011. Negotiating epistemic rights to information in Korean conversation: An examination of the Korean evidential marker -tamye. Discourse Studies 13(4): 435–59.Google Scholar
Kim, Minju. 2008. The emergence of the Korean modal -keyss: From causative to epistemic and volitive modal. Discourse and Cognition 15(2): 1–27.Google Scholar
Kim, Nayoung. 2018. Grammaticalized sentence ender -key. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii at Manoa.Google Scholar
Kim, Tae-yop. 1998. kwuke pi-congkyel emi-uy congkyel emihwa-ey tayhaye [On the change of non-final endings to final endings]. Enehak 22: 171–89.Google Scholar
Ko, Kwangmo. 2000. Sangtay nophim-uy cosa “-yo”-wa “-psyo”-uy kiwen-kwa hyengseng [Origin and formation of addressee honorific -yo and -psyo]. Kwukehak 36: 259–82.Google Scholar
Ko, Kwangmo. 2002. “keyss”-uy hyengseng-kwa ku uymi-uy paltal [Genesis of keyss and the evolution of its meanings]. Kwukehak 30: 25–47.Google Scholar
Ko, Young-geun. 2007. Phyocwun cwungsey kwuke munpeplon, kaycengphan [Standard Middle Korean Grammar–revised edition]. Seoul: Cipmuntang.Google Scholar
Koo, Hyun-jung, and Rhee, Seongha. 2001. Coken phyoci-eyse muncang congkyel phyoci-lo-uy munpephwa [Grammaticalization from condition marking to a sentence ender]. Discourse and Cognition 8(1): 1–19.Google Scholar
Kwon, Iksoo. 2012. Viewpoints in the Korean verbal complex: Evidence, perception, assessment, and time. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Kwon, Jaeil. 1998. Hankwuke mwunpepsa [A history of Korean grammar]. Seoul: Pagiceng.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1990. Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 1: 5–38.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1999. Losing control: Grammaticalization, subjectification, and transparency. In Blank, Andreas and Koch, Peter, eds., Historical Semantics and Cognition. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 147–75.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2002. Deixis and subjectivity. In Brisard, Frank, ed., Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2006. Subjectification, grammaticalization, and conceptual archetypes. In Athanasiadou, Angeliki, Canakis, Costa, and Cornillie, Bert, eds., Subjectification: Various Paths to Subjectivity. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 17–40.Google Scholar
Lee, Byung-gi. 2006. Hankwuke milayseng phyohyen-uy yeksacek yenkwu [A historical study of futurity expressions in Korean]. Ph.D. dissertation in linguistics, Seoul National University.Google Scholar
Lee, Gum-hee. 2013. Congkyel emi “-(u)nkel”, “-nunkel”-kwa “-(u)lkel”-uy munpephwa kwaceng-kwa uymi thukseng [Grammaticalization processes and semantic features of sentence ender -(u)nkel, -nunkel, and -(u)lkel]. Hankwuke Uymihak 42: 111–39.Google Scholar
Lee, Hidu. 2000. Kwuke conching hyengthay-uy pyenhwa kwaceng yenkwu [A study on the processes of Korean honorific forms]. Seoul: Pokosa.Google Scholar
Lee, Hyo Sang. 1991. Tense, aspect, and modality: A discourse-pragmatic analysis of verbal affixes in Korean from a typological perspective. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Lee, Hyo Sang. 1999. A discourse-pragmatic analysis of the committal -ci in Korean: A synthetic approach to the form-meaning relation. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 243–75.Google Scholar
Lee, Hyo-Sang. 2014. Modality. In Brown, L. and Yeon, J., eds., The Handbook of Korean Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 249–68.Google Scholar
Lee, Jungmee. 2011. Evidentiality and its interaction with tense: Evidence from Korean. Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Lee, Ki-Dong. 1979. Yenkyel emi “-nuntey”-uy hwayongsang-uy kinung [Pragmatic functions of the connective ending -nuntey]. Inmun Kwahak 40/41. Yonse University.Google Scholar
Lee, Kikap. 1987. Miceng-uy ssikkuth -uli-wa -keyss-uy yeksacek kyochey [Historical replacement of the probability suffix -uli by -keyss]. Mal 12: 161–97.Google Scholar
Lee, Seung-uk. 1973. Kwuke munpep cheykyey-uy sacek yenkwu [A historical study of the grammatical system of Korean]. Seoul: Ilcokak.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. 1985. Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingual e Stile 20(3): 303–18.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. 1995. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Munchen and Newcastle: LINCOM EUROPA.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. 1982. Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum? In Jarvella, R. J. and Klein, W., eds., Speech, Place, and Action: Studies in Deixis and Related Topics. Chichester and New York: John Wiley, pp. 101–24.Google Scholar
Min, Hyunsik. 1984. Kayhwaki kwuke kyengepep-ey tayhaye [On Korean honorifics during the enlightenment period]. Kwanak Emunyenkwu 9: 141–3.Google Scholar
Na, Jin Suk. 1953. Milay sisang ekan “li”-wa “keyss”-uy kyochey [Replacement of future tense li by keys]. Kwuke Kwukmunhak 6: 6–8.Google Scholar
Na, Jin Suk. 1971. Wuli mal uy ttaymaykim yenkwu [A Study of Korean Tense]. Seoul: Kwahak-sa.Google Scholar
Nam, Pung-Hyun. 2012. Old Korean. In Tranter, Nicolas, ed., The Languages of Japan and Korea. London: Routledge, pp. 41–72.Google Scholar
Narrog, H., and Heine, B., eds. 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2001. Epistemic Modality: Language and Conceptualization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. 2001. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Park, Mee-Jeong, and Sohn, Sung-Ock. 2002. Discourse, Grammaticalization, and Intonation: An analysis of -ketun in Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 10: 306–19.Google Scholar
Park, Jae-yeon. 2006. Hankwuk-e yangthay emi yenkwu [A Study of Korean Modal Endings]. Seoul: Thayhak-sa.Google Scholar
Park, Jin-ho. 2011. Sicey, sang, yangthay [Tense, Aspect, and Modality]. Kwuke-hak 60: 290–322.Google Scholar
Park, Mee-Jeong, and Sohn, Sung-Ock. 2002. Discourse, grammaticalization, and intonation: An analysis of - ketun in Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 10: 306–19.Google Scholar
Park, Yong Yae. 1998. A discourse analysis of the Korean connective -ketun in conversation. Crossroads of Language, Interaction, and Culture 1: 71–89.Google Scholar
Park, Yong Yae. 1999. The Korean connective -nŭnde in conversational discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 191–218.Google Scholar
Park, Youngjun. 1998. Hyengthayso “-ess”-uy thongsicek pyenchen (Diachronic development of the morpheme -ess). Hankwukehak 8: 67–88.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha. 2007. Subjectification of reported speech in grammaticalization and lexicalization. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 12: 590–603.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha. 2012. Grammaticalization and stance-taking of the sentential ending keya in Korean. Discourse and Cognition 19(2): 39–55.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-min. 1974. Modals and speaker-hearer perspectives in Korean. Papers in Linguistics (Linguistic Research, Inc., Canada) 7(3/4): 493–520.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-min. 1975. Retrospection in Korean. Language Research 11(1): 87–103. Also pp. 137–154 of Linguistic Expeditions by Sohn, Ho-min. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-min. 1978. Contractions as a mechanism of polysemic breeding: A device for speaker involvement in Korean. In Kim, Chin-W., ed., Papers in Korean Linguistics. Columbia: Hornbeam Press, pp. 197–205.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-min. 1986. Intercultural communication in cognitive values: Americans and Koreans. In Sohn, H-m, Linguistic Expeditions. Seoul: Hansin, pp. 438–71.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-min. 1996. Reanalysis in Korean complex predicate constructions: Causative derivation. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 5: 37–64.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-min. 1999. The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-min. 2012. A grammar of po- “see” in Korean: A pan-chronic approach. Language Information 14: 83–117.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-min. 2013a. An emergent category of interpersonal modals in Korean. The Annual Research Report on Korean Studies 13: 1–22. Kyushyu University, Japan.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-min. 2013b. Politeness as a cause of linguistic change in Korean. In Sohn, Ho-min, Topics in Korean Language and Linguistics. Seoul: Korea University Press, pp. 164–80.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-min. 2015. Evolution of Korean honorifics: A grammaticalization perspective. Korean Linguistics 17(2): 167–206.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-min. 2018. Evidentiality in Korean. In Aikhenvald, A. Y., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 693–708.Google Scholar
Sohn, Sung-Ock. 1996a. Contraction and restructuring in modern Korean: A case of incipient grammaticalization. Chicago Linguistics Society 30: 391–403.Google Scholar
Sohn, Sung-Ock. 1996b. On the development of sentence-final particles in Korean. In Akatsuka, N., Iwasaki, S., and Strauss, S., eds., Japanese/Korean Linguistics 5. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 219–34.Google Scholar
Sohn, Sung-Ock. 2003. On the emergence of intersubjectivity: An analysis of the sentence-final nikka in Korean. In McClure, W., ed., Japanese/Korean Linguistics 12. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 52–63.Google Scholar
Song, Kyung An. 2010. Various evidentials in Korean, the Proceedings of PACLIC 24: 895–905.Google Scholar
Stein, Dieter, and Wright, Susan. 1995. Subjectivity and Subjectivisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Strauss, Susan. 2005. Cognitive realization markers in Korean: A discourse-pragmatic study of the sentence-ending particles -kwun, -ney, and -tela. Language Sciences 27: 437–48.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Lehmann, W. P. and Malkiel, Y., eds., Perspectives on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 245–71.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 57: 33–65.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalization. In Stein, Dieter and Wright, Susan, eds., Subjectivity and Subjectification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 31–54.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 1997. Subjectification and the development of epistemic meaning: The case of promise and threaten. In Swan, Toril and Westvik, Olaf J., eds., Modality in Germanic Languages. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 185–210.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 2003. From subjectification to intersubjctifiction. In Hickey, Raymond, ed., Motives for Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 124–39.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Davidse, Vandelanotte, and Cuyckens, eds., (2010), pp. 29–71.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., and Dasher, R. B.. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., and Heine, B., eds. 1991. Approaches to Grammaticalization I and II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Verhage, Arie. 2005. Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anne. 2002. The theory of cultural scripts as a tool of cross-cultural communication. In Korean Linguistics Today and Tomorrow. Proceedings of the 2002 International Conference on Korean Linguistics. Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
Yeon, Jaehoon, and Brown, Lucien. 2011. Korean: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Yoo, Hyun-gyung. 2002. Emi “-tako”-uy uymi-wa yongpep [Meaning and usage of the ender -tako]. Paytalmal 31: 101–4.Google Scholar
Yuen, S. A. 2001. Socio-pragmatic functions of Korean interactive sentence enders from politeness perspective. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Hawaii at Manoa.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×