A corpus-based discourse analysis of Korean grammatical constructions: Focus on the multifold functions and meanings of the pragmatic construction e kaciko

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Summarize

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Copyright 2015 Heeyoung Ahn A CORPUS-BASED DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF KOREAN GRAMMATICAL CONSTRUCTIONS: FOCUS ON THE MULTIFOLD FUNCTIONS AND MEANINGS OF THE PRAGMATIC CONSTRUCTION E KACIKO by Heeyoung Ahn A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (EAST ASIAN LANGUAGES AND CULTURES) December 2015 ii Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF FIGURES vi LIST OF IMAGES vii APPENDIX A: TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS viii APPENDIX B: TRANSALTION SYMBOLS ix APPENDIX C: ABBREVIATIONS x ABSTRACT xii Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Context of the research 2 1.3 Research questions 5 1.4 Methodology and data 8 1.5 Organization of the dissertation 8 Chapter 2 Theoretical background: discourse analysis and pragmatics 11 2.1 Introduction 11 2.1.1 Communication 12 2.2 Discourse analysis 13 2.2.1 Definitions of discourse and discourse analysis 14 2.2.2 Key concepts in pragmatic-discourse analysis 16 2.2.2.1 Coherence 17 2.2.2.2 Context 19 2.2.2.3 Schemata 20 2.3 Studies of pragmatics 25 2.3.1 Influential studies in pragmatics 26 2.3.1.1 J.L. Austin (1962) 26 2.3.1.2 H.P. Grice (1967;1975) 29 2.3.2 Practice of implicature in discourse 31 2.4 Summary 33 Chapter 3 Use of the verb kacita and the construction e kaciko 35 3.1 Introduction 35 3.2 Previous studies of kaciko and e kaciko 36 3.3 Use of the verb kacita 44 3.4 Grammaticalization 48 3.5 Pragmaticalization 53 3.6 Summary 57 Chapter 4 Analysis and discussion I: analyzing discourse where e kaciko appears as a connective 59 4.1 Introduction 59 4.2 Distribution of e kaciko in the corpus 60 4.2.1 Formality and the distribution of e kaciko across discourse 60 4.3 Deformalizing the tone of discourse 62 4.4 Using e kaciko in sequential contexts 68 4.4.1 Comprising composite verb constructions 68 4.4.2 Expressing the speaker’s personal associations toward the sequential relations 70 A. E kaciko in ‘trouble talk’ discourses as a social act 72 iii 4.5 Using e kaciko in causal contexts 72 4.5.1 Expressing the speaker’s regret or pity toward a negative consequence 73 A. E kaciko conveying the speaker’s stance 75 B. Distribution of e kaciko in negative contexts 76 4.5.2 Blaming on the addressee with regard to a negative consequence 78 A. E kaciko in ‘talking behind the addressee’s back’ discourses as a social act 80 4.5.3 Asking for the interlocutor’s understanding in troublesome situations 81 4.5.3.1 Clarifying the speaker’s position 82 A. Pragmatic device: Silence and reticence in interaction 85 B. Pragmatic device: Self-repetition in interaction 86 4.5.3.2 Making an apology 88 A. Facework and politeness strategies 91 B. Apologies and facework 93 C. How to apologize using e kaciko 94 4.5.4 Comparing the causative e kaciko in different contexts 96 4.6 Projecting the speaker’s judgment outward to the addressee in contexts where counter-expectations are met 97 4.6.1 Expressing the speaker’s surprise in adversative contexts 98 A. Flouting the maxim of quantity and its implications 101 B. E kaciko in confined discourses 102 C. E kaciko and schemata activation 104 4.6.2 Projecting the speaker’s judgmental opinion in conditional contexts 107 A. Achieving coherence using e kaciko 100 B. Related schemata 111 C. E kaciko in the rhetorical questions and facework 113 D. Pragmatic ambiguity 114 E. Meaning negotiation 115 4.7 Using e kaciko as a speech act tool for pre-events 117 4.7.1 Making requests 117 A. Meaning negotiation 118 4.7.2 Making refusals 120 A. Meaning negotiation 121 4.7.3 Facework and politeness 122 4.8 Summary 124 Chapter 5 Analysis and discussion II: comparing discourses where e kaciko and ese appear 129 5.1 Introduction 129 5.2 Understanding of the connective ese 130 5.3 Previous accounts of ese 132 5.3.1 Ese as a causal connective 132 5.3.2 Ese as a sequential connective 139 5.4 Discussion 142 5.4.1 Discourse and register 142 5.4.2 Pragmatic use of e kaciko when expressing the speaker’s attitude toward the given situation 145 5.4.3 Pragmatic use of e kaciko when expressing the speaker’s attitude toward the interlocutor 147 5.4.4 Association of schematic knowledge in e kaciko discourses 151 5.5 Summary 153 iv Chapter 6 Analysis and Discussion III: Analyzing discourse in which e kaciko appears as a sentence-concluding ending 156 6.1 Introduction 156 6.2 Expressing the speaker’s frustration toward what has happened and its consequences 157 A. Contextual factors 162 6.3 Expressing the speaker’s regret about what she or he had already done 164 A. Contextual factors 166 6.4 Expressing the speaker’s attitude about the lamentable situation that the addressee has caused 168 A. Contextual factors 170 6.5 Expressing the speaker’s frustration toward the addressee about what she or he did to the speaker 171 6.6 Pragmatic implications of the interjection way ‘why’ and its relation with constructing the SCE e kaciko discourses 175 6.7 Expressing the speaker’s sarcastic attitude toward the addressee 177 6.7.1 Teasing about the addressee’s behavior between intimates 178 6.7.2 Degrees of sarcasm in accordance with interpersonal relationships 180 6.7.3 Contextual factors 184 6.7.4 Sarcasm and facework 185 6.8 Expressing the speaker’s grudge toward the addressee through innuendo 186 6.8.1 Innuendo toward the addressee on-site 186 6.8.2 Innuendo toward the addressee off-site 187 A. Hostile or polite? 189 6.8.3 Innuendo in asymmetrical relationships 190 6.8.4 Use of the deferential ending yo 193 6.9 Social self and intersubjectivity 194 6.10 Summary 196 Chapter 7 Concluding remarks 199 7.1 Conclusion 199 7.2 Implications for further study 202 Bibliography 205 v List of Tables Table 1: Distribution of the overall use of e kaciko in different text types in spoken discourse from the Sejong Corpus 61 Table 2: Co-occurrence of composite expressions and e kaciko 64 Table 3: [± negative] connotations of e kaciko 77 Table 4: Categorization of face-threatening acts in accordance with parameters 92 Table 5: Restrictions of sentence-concluding endings for ese and nikka main clauses 133 Table 6: Restrictions of non-final endings in the main clause of ese and nikka sentences 135 vi List of Figures Figure 1: Lexical and functional properties of kaciko 47 Figure 2: Interrelated paths of kaciko and e kaciko 53 Figure 3: Process of pragmaticalization 54 Figure 4: Process of meaning negotiation in accordance with utterance (54) 116 Figure 5: Distribution of e kaciko in contemporary Korean discourse 144 vii List of Figures Image 1: Image attached to the article headlined ‘It ’s raining-E KACIKO ’ 159 Image 2: Image attached to the article headlined ‘They launched a rocket-E KACIKO ’ 161 viii Appendix A: Transcription conventions (simplified) (: :) lengthy pause (.) micro-pause "~ rising intonation, not necessarily a question , continuing intonation hhh hearable aspiration: breathing, sigh, etc. --- lengthening of speech (@@) Laugh tokens not while speaking (x) Indecipherable word; Recording is not clear (xx) Silence (…) Omitted ix Appendix B: Translation symbols (( )) Transcriber’s note (lit.) Literal translation ( ) Words added for clarification [ ] Speaker’s intention x Appendix C: Abbreviations ACC Accusative CD Casual Deferential CDE Casual-Deferential Declarative CDINTR Casual-Deferential Interrogative CMP Comparison CL Numeral Classifier (counter) CMT Complementizer CONN Connective COP Copular CP Casual Plain CPE Casual-Plain Declarative CPINRT Casual-Plain Interrogative DIR Directional EMP Emphasis Particle FDE Formal-Deferential Declarative FDI Formal-Deferential Imperative FDINTR Formal-Deferential Interrogative GEN Genitive HON Honorific IMP Imperative INS Instrumental INTJ Interjection INTR Interrogative xi INTS Intensifier LOC Locative NEG Negative Particle NOM Nominative NOMZ Nominalizer PAST Past Tense PRS Present Tense PLR Plural PRMS Promise PROG Progressive PROP Propositive QUOT Quotative RPT Reportative RSL Resultative SCE Sentence-Concluding Ending SENS Sensory SOC Source SUP Suppositive TEMP Temporal WE Written Ending xii ABSTRACT This dissertation explores one of the most prominent grammatical phenomena contributing to the expansion of Korean grammar, one which is carried out by virtue of functional shifts from connectives to sentence-concluding endings. The present study is devoted to revealing the development of diverse applications of the grammatical construction e kaciko from its use as a connective to that of a sentence-concluding ending. Through the process of functional shift, newly created constructions acquire new implicatures and thus establish pragmatic functions such as performing speech acts, instead of being confined to denoting only locutionary meanings. Original corpus data deploying the construction e kaciko as both a connective and a sentence- concluding ending are analyzed through the lens of their pragmatic accounts at the discourse level. Analysis of the corpus data revealed that e kaciko exclusively appears in spoken discourse and is predominantly distributed in more informal and negative contexts. Examination of the connective e kaciko showed that it has distinctive pragmatic roles across various discourses, namely, 1) when expressing the speaker’s personal associations toward sequential relations, 2) when expressing the speaker’s regret or pity toward a negative consequence, 3) when blaming the addressee with regard to a negative consequence, 4) when asking for the interlocutor’s understating in troublesome situations, 5) when expressing the speaker’s surprise in adversative contexts, 6) when projecting the speaker’s judgmental opinion in conditional contexts, 7) when making a request, and 8) when stating a refusal. Examination of the connective e kaciko as a sentence-concluding ending, on the other hand, showed that it was distributed exclusively in negative contexts, and that the speakers therein expressed a negative stance. E kaciko serving as a sentence-concluding ending thus creates two possible pragmatic meanings on a broader scale: (a) frustration-based emotions and (b) xiii sarcasm, which are both related to negative or troublesome contexts. These contexts can refer to what has already happened at the hands of a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd person, or even ‘outsourced’ non-human actors (e.g., the weather, North Korea) and could not be changed. As a consequence, although such negative or troublesome contexts may or may not affect the speaker’s unpleasant feelings, the sentence-concluding ending e kaciko thereby expresses the speaker’s sarcasm, regret, pity, lamentableness, criticism, complaint, or frustration, etc., toward the particular situation or context. The nature of utterances ending in e kaciko coincides with the negative nature of utterances that contain the connective form of e kaciko. In other words, the distribution tendencies of the connective e kaciko become more strongly accentuated, resulting in the implication of a negative stance, through the deployment of the sentence-concluding ending e kaciko. In a broader sense, the results of the current study shed light on the fact that frequent language use over time in particular contexts accumulates and becomes schematized, resulting in new categories of pragmatic functions being generated from the speaker’s intention of expressing his/her attitude, thoughts toward the content (what is being said) and/or the addressee, politeness strategies, social acts, and other related schemata in discourse. 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Human interaction mainly relies on exchanging utterances. All utterances are embedded in a social, cultural, and linguistic context (Aijmer, 2013: 9). Across various language communities, language users agree to comply with rules, protocols, appointments, etc., in terms of the use of language forms and the way of expressing them. In this regard, many linguists claim that what we say and how we communicate are determined by our social relationships (e.g., Yule, 2011; Aijmer, 2013). This suggests that linguistic interaction is necessarily a social interaction. In order to make sense of using language in interaction, we should account for various factors related to social values and interpersonal relationships between participants that are established or socially agreed prior to the interaction. In addition, languages change over time both diachronically and synchronically with respect to their linguistic forms and meanings. While there are significant factors that may alter a language, including historical influences such as invasions, migration, etc., and the emergence of new technologies such as the Internet, it is even more important to realize that all of us, as language users, are continually driving linguistic change through our interactions in a variety of contexts. In other words, language change is derived from language use by language users. The entire process constructs schematic backgrounds of language use, and it consists of profound pragmatic properties of the language. In particular, the pragmatic nature of language use is mainly constructed through a reflection of the speaker’s presentation of her or his attitude toward the content being said and/or the addressee. Therefore, linguistic phenomena can be handled naturally only by taking into account pragmatic factors such as context, real-world knowledge, and 2 inference. Schiffrin (1987:107) points out that pragmatics provides us with the ‘parameters and potential values’ that linguistic elements have when they are looked at from a pragmatic perspective, for example, with regard to society, discourse, culture, and human relationships. In this regard, as opposed to traditional views, grammar is understood as simultaneously being firmly rooted in social interaction, and thus we see that much of what has previously been ascribed to meaning and information coding can, in addition, also be understood as social and interactional in nature. It is common now to address theoretical issues through the examination of language data that naturally occurs in use. It has been pointed out that working on actual language data has been in place for decades when examining the use of grammar in discourse by considering how discourse use shapes grammar (Givón, 1979; Hopper & Thompson, 1980; Bybee, 1985; Ono et al., 2000; Thompson & Hopper, 2001). This suggests that grammatical descriptions of particular language use should pay attention to how grammar functions in discourse in which ‘actual language’ is naturally produced. 1.2 Context of the research Some previous studies of Indo-European languages focused on adverbial or paraphrasal expressions, such as comment clauses or parenthetical expressions, with respect to the expression of the speaker’s attitude during language use (e.g., Rouchota, 1998; Scheibman, 2002; Thompson, 2002; Kärkkäinen, 2003; Robert, 2007). These studies reveal how speakers use expressions such as ‘I think,’ ‘I guess,’ ‘You know,’ and the like from a diachronic and/or synchronic point of view. Many of the studies are devoted to exploring diachronic paths in which these expressions have come to acquire pragmatic functions over time. In relation to this particular research interest, the Korean language establishes distinctive characteristics owing to its grammatical structure. Yet it is possible to present counterparts in other languages, such as combinations of a subject and predicate or comment clauses. However, 3 expressing the speaker’s attitude with language use is rather practically performed by connectives and sentence-concluding endings (henceforth SCEs) in Korean discourse because of the pragmatic nature often hardwired into some of those grammatical elements. In this dissertation, the construction e kaciko is chosen as a key candidate for such an expression of delivering pragmatic meanings. Because e kaciko is prone to appear in particular contexts over time, it has acquired multifold meanings in addition to diverse functions. More importantly, e kaciko carries pragmatic meanings that imply the speaker’s personal associations or attitude toward what s/he is talking about or toward the addressee. In addition, e kaciko is exclusively deployed in spoken discourse, suggesting that e kaciko predominantly takes place in creating interactive discourse. The examinations of how grammatical items, including the construction e kaciko, function in actual discourse are not confined to studies of linguistics, but are also largely applicable to the fields of Korean learning and teaching Korean as a foreign language. In fact, the essential goal of language learning and teaching is to acquire communicative skills in the target language. Communicative competence includes skills that go beyond linguistic competence; that is, a speaker with communicative competence ought to be able to interact with her or his participant in the language, while, of course, the multi-fold meanings, or messages and intentions, of the language forms being used, come and go. The fields of second and foreign language learning, and teaching, of the Korean language have grown remarkably in recent decades. Because language learning and teaching are generally based on the spoken language, or sets of utterances, there is consequently an increasing need for the investigation of spoken language along with systematic descriptions of its use. However, studies on Korean grammar have traditionally dealt with language use without a distinction between spoken and written text (Kim, 2012; Mok, 2011). In other words, to date conversational language use had tended to be considered marginal or confined to describing the morphosyntactic and semantic properties of language without understanding its pragmatic accounts. 4 Moreover, traditional grammar rules, which solely focus on isolated sentences divorced from any surrounding utterances and communication participants, etc., have been applied to the field of language learning and teaching. In response, it has also been pointed out that grammatical forms are selected in the process of interaction (e.g., Widdowson, 2007; Celce-Murcia, 2000; Nunan, 1993; Cumming & Ono 1997; Paltridge, 2006), which cannot be observed within single sentences. In the same vein, many researchers have consistently argued that traditional grammar does not adequately explain the actual use of language from a sentence-based perspective. Hughes and McCarthy (1998: 268) also argue that traditional explanations of grammar do not correspond to grammatical choices in actual spoken texts. In this sense, there has been a growing realization of a substantial gap between current research in Korean linguistics or Korean language education as a foreign language and accounts of actual, contemporary use of Korean. The abovementioned narrow perspectives of language are the main culprits, resulting in some interpretations of utterances that inevitably remain indecipherable. To fill the gap, therefore, pragmatic competence must be included as a component among the overall range of linguistic abilities that language learners should be equipped with. Given that language is used to communicate, we should not neglect the fact that the speaker interacts with her or his interlocutor, and that they each create unique utterances. In addition, in actual communication situations language use is constrained by the meaning potential and some challenges with regard to pragmatic factors. For example, even the way individuals interact, that is, how they deliver and receive meaning through those utterances, is intentional. Sometimes the intended meaning is directly expressed, while at other times the meaning may emerge gradually, or more indirectly, through conversation. Hence, to clearly and accurately reveal how meanings are created and interpreted, contextual or real-world knowledge should help determine the reading the speaker has intended. Thus, in this dissertation the language use of the construction e kaciko will be analyzed at a broader level beyond isolated sentences. This type of analysis is technically known as discourse 5 analysis. Observing and analyzing language use from such a broader perspective enables us to shed light on many of the linguistic issues of Korean which have yet to be adequately investigated. Therefore, we will be able to classify and analyze the various uses of e kaciko, and describe their context-specific functions. We shall also assess whether any generalizations can be made about their uses in relation to their respective pragmatic natures. 1.3 Research questions This dissertation focuses on the actual use of the construction e kaciko in interaction, aiming at elucidating its pragmatic uses in various contexts by analyzing corpus data of spoken Korean. Therefore, in this dissertation I will explore the Korean construction e kaciko, which is a worthy pursuit for the four following reasons. First, despite the fact that in actual conversations e kaciko is pervasively used by native Korean speakers, it has yet to be rigorously investigated mainly because the communicative aspects of its grammatical elements have received little attention. Second, e kaciko exclusively appears in spoken language, whereas many connectives which can express the same meaning are found in both spoken and written language settings, differences in distribution notwithstanding. Thereon, the speech acts in which e kaciko participates, such as requests, need to be clarified. Third, e kaciko cannot be easily described as having one particular meaning; for example, it can be loosely translated as ‘and then’ or ‘because,’ etc., when it appears as a connective. Thus it is still unclear why speakers choose e kaciko over other connectives such as ese, which carry those meanings to different degrees. Hence, the importance of context and schematic knowledge must be stressed throughout the dissertation. Fourth, no previous research has noted the fact that e kaciko functions not only as a connective but also as a SCE. The SCE use of e kaciko differs from the connective e kaciko. Moreover, the SCE e kaciko cannot be replaced by ese, other connectives, or other SCEs; thus its meaning cannot be simply captured unless its distribution is analyzed in 6 various discourses. From the perspective of language learning and teaching, lastly, my research interests are rooted in the realization that planned lessons are quite distinct from the reality outside of the classroom. Given that the mindset of humans tends to be dynamic and not as simple as is often depicted in language textbooks, learners of Korean should not be confined to materials that do not consider the pragmatic nature of a given grammatical form or construction. In these regards, this dissertation will attempt to answer the following research questions: (a) How is the construction e kaciko distributed as both a connective and a SCE in present- day Korean discourse? (b) What multifold semantic functions and meanings does e kaciko have? (c) What are the characterizations of co-texts in which e kaciko is deployed, e.g., linguistic co-occurrences, prosodic features, etc.? (d) In what contexts can the various aspects of e kaciko be construed, e.g., activation of schemata, etc.? (e) What pragmatic factors are associated with the use of e kaciko, e.g., politeness, interpersonal relationships between participants, etc.? (f) How do the speaker and the interlocutor interact, e.g., via sequential organization, including responses, etc.? (g) What is the range of speech accomplished by e kaciko? (h) How does the speaker project her or his attitude toward the content and the addressee/interlocutor? Giving a full description of the construction e kaciko based on the abovementioned data and analysis is meaningful because it represents pioneering work in the revealing of the features of e kaciko and its uses in authentic discourses. More importantly, the fruition of this research does not impose limits on the descriptions of e kaciko; additional descriptions are certainly possible. It 7 is thus hoped that the current findings will enhance the understanding of how Korean speakers use a particular grammatical construction in different communicative interactions, and also provide new evidence of the gap between prescriptive grammar and actual language use. In other words, the current analyses of e kaciko will lead us to resolve a long-standing conundrum of Korean linguistics. For example, we have commonly neglected the concept of schematic knowledge beyond the use of language. Analyzing specific schemata in detail with each individual use of language and interaction will provide us with vital clues as to ‘why the speaker says so,’ ‘why the speaker employed the specific grammatical item in such a specific way,’ and ‘how the interlocutor is supposed to decode it,’ etc. In particular, to date the connectives have been excluded from research dealing with expressing the speaker’s intention or attitude, an area which has traditionally been considered as belonging to the realm of SCEs. However, as I will show in detail in the subsequent chapters, the uses of connectives and their close resembling SCEs are interrelated; they create a usage continuum by evolving and changing their forms to some extent based on their accumulated usages over time in accordance with the speakers that utter them and the contexts in which they appear. Therefore, there are multi-dimensional ways of analyzing actual language use through the consideration of multiple factors. 1.4 Methodology and data This dissertation adopts an analytic framework from a multi-dimensional approach based on discourse analysis, corpus linguistics, and pragmatics. Drawing on corpus-based qualitative analysis methods, I will conduct a detailed analysis of the two main corpora that comprise the majority of the data for this dissertation. First, the most recently updated version of the Sejong Corpus will be used, which contains the largest currently available database. I first examined the corpus to confirm that e kaciko only occurs in spoken Korean discourse. Therefore, I will selectively use the present-day Korean language data contained in the Spoken Sejong Corpus 8 because this dissertation takes a synchronic approach. In addition, although I will mostly focus on qualitative analyses, quantitative analyses based on the usage frequencies of particular uses of e kaciko will be provided when necessary. Second, because it is particularly important for this study to collect abundant data showing the maximum variety of speech situations and participants to examine how and when discourse containing e kaciko occurs, I also constructed a separate corpus consisting of 163 episodes of the Korean TV show Kwutseyela Kumswuna (airing from February to September 2005) and 16 episodes of Goodbye Solo (airing from March to April 2006). In addition, I also included data from Korean language World Wide Web (hereafter, “web”) pages from which naturally produced spoken data could be obtained. In my analyses, the extracted instances of the construction e kaciko in such large corpora will be shown along with the given contexts including their neighboring co-texts. As indicated in Celce-Murcia and Olshtain (2001), it is also important to analyze data systematically from both linguistic and sociocultural perspectives by taking into account how participants interact in social and cultural contexts. For the current corpus-based discourse analysis, the collected data will be transcribed according to the basic conventions of conversation analysis (Atkinson and Heritage, 1984), which aims to provide a systematic and detailed examination of talk-in-interaction. Overall, drawing on the abovementioned methodology and data, detailed analyses of formal and informal interactions will be discussed. I will demonstrate “how content is construed” in discourse in which e kaciko appears as both a connective and a SCE to provide a detailed description of the functions and contextual realization of e kaciko in present-day spoken Korean. 1.5 Organization of the dissertation The present chapter introduces the overall context and discusses the issues addressed in this analysis of the pragmatic uses of e kaciko in present-day Korean discourse. The subsequent chapters of this dissertation will be organized as follows. 9 Chapter 2 presents the theoretical background of this research and discusses how pragmatic factors contribute to analyzing the use of the construction e kaciko and what factors must be accounted for when analyzing it in discourse. I will also introduce the key notions of pragmatics and discourse analysis. Chapter 3 presents previous accounts of the constructions kaciko and e kaciko in the existing Korean linguistics literature. In addition, I will discuss how kaciko and e kaciko are described in current Korean reference grammars and examine their uses accordingly. A discussion of particles compatible with kaciko will also be included. The latter part of Chapter 3 is dedicated to discussing language use and change. We will consider how the verb kaci is used and how kaciko formulates the constructions kaciko and e kaciko. Thereafter, the use of kaciko will be discussed with reference to studies of grammaticalization to reveal the interrelated paths of grammaticalization that kaciko and e kaciko have been undergoing from the perspective of discourse pragmatic phenomena. I will illustrate how language change is involved in meaning change and meaning creation. Chapter 4 will provide an analysis of the connective use of e kaciko in diverse contexts. Various aspects of discourse where the connective e kaciko appears across contexts will be elucidated. We will also examine the pragmatic and contextual factors in discourse in which e kaciko is deployed. In particular, I will further discuss what types of speech acts are performed by e kaciko and the meaning negotiation between the speaker and the interlocutor by accounting for the formality of contexts, interpersonal factors, and other types of schematic knowledge. Chapter 5 discusses e kaciko in comparison with other connectives with a focus on their distributional use in discourse. Based on previous investigations of connectives that are considered to be compatible with e kaciko in terms of their analogic semantic meanings, I will examine in depth the discourses in which e kaciko is chosen over these other connectives to further elucidate the pragmatic nature of e kaciko also discussed in Chapter 5. 10 Chapter 6 examines how e kaciko functions differently from the connective e kaciko when it appears as a SCE in discourse. Given the fact that the grammatical functions of SCEs are in general to indicate the speaker’s attitude toward the content, I will examine how the SCE e kaciko comprises discourses by analyzing the types of utterances and discourses in which it appears. Therefore, I will be able to elucidate what distinctive pragmatic functions the SCE e kaciko performs and how e kaciko formulates interactive discourse in order to conduct, for example, facework and politeness strategies. Chapter 7 summarizes comments on the theoretical significance of the present study and discusses implications for further research. 11 CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND: DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AND PRAGMATICS 2.1 Introduction In the previous chapter, we mentioned the importance of taking a pragmatic approach to study language and language use. In the fields of discourse and pragmatic studies, many researchers have addressed the discourse, pragmatic, and interactional aspects of language along with the rise in interest in these aspects. In this regard, perspectives on grammar have changed in that grammatical descriptions of a particular language should consider how grammar functions in the service of expressing the speaker’s meaning, attitude, pragmatic functions, and the like (e.g., Traugott and Dasher, 2002; Robert, 2007; Englebretson, 2007). It is assumed that the exclusive use of e kaciko in spoken rather than written discourse reflects the nature of spoken discourse, which often requires an interactional process and speech acts. Therefore, the pragmatic approach is necessary for understanding the natural use of e kaciko and the resulting coherent discourse. Van Dijk (1979) notes that pragmatics should account for both individual speech acts as well as the relationships among speech act sequences in interaction. In a similar vein, interactions between participants are emphasized in discourse because they can establish successful communication only if the participants pay attention to what his or her interlocutor aims to achieve, and what they mutually have in mind in the given speech situation (Schiffrin, 1990; Nuyts, 2001; Verhagen, 2005). Sometimes the relationships and exchange of language and thoughts are obvious, while at other times they are subtle or allusive. Therefore I will analyze discourses in which e kaciko occurs to investigate how we construct and exchange words, sentences, and speech with an interlocutor, and how they are mutually interpreted. 12 2.1.1 Communication Language is recognized as an instrument of communication and thought. Communicative exchange is not confined to understanding the language system itself, such as its sounds, letters, words, and grammar, etc., although knowledge of the language system is integral to the process of exchanging messages and ideas. Moreover, communication is more likely to be associated with bringing the knowledge expressed by those participating into a degree of convergence, or mutual understanding. Let us see how this is carried out with the following example: (1) Kapcaki palam-i seykey pwul-ess-ta. Suddenly wind -NOM strongly blow-PAST-WE Mwun-i tathye-ss-ta. Door-NOM close- PAST-WE ‘Suddenly the wind strongly blew. The door slammed shut.’ Two sentences are presented in (1), and between them there is no connecting device to explicitly indicate a particular relationship between them both in the Korean and English utterances. Nonetheless, we automatically assume that the preceding event caused the subsequent event. What enables us to draw such an inference? We could have preconceived the possibility that the strong wind closed the door, since we have heard about and perhaps even seen such a thing happen from experience; or, it may be the case that we inferred the relationship between the two sentences by making the most appropriate contextual connection when considering the relationship in which they are placed; here, a cause-effect relationship is most plausible instead of, say, an adversative relationship. Otherwise, as an additional possibility, the utterance may be understood by acquiring clues from the co-text, which includes any preceding and subsequent utterances. 13 However, the relationship between sentences is not always as obvious as in (1). It can be rather subtle or allusive, which is perhaps designed according to the speaker’s intention; if that is the case the speaker’s utterance invites the interlocutor to infer the meaning of the utterance as well as the speaker’s intention of uttering it in a particular way. In a similar sense, from the speaker’s perspective, the speaker conducts his or her speech act in accordance with his or her communicative intention. Therefore, decoding the speaker’s communicative intention requires some resourcefulness on the part of the interlocutor. We may conclude that the text makes sense by keying into the context; this is the way we realize discourse from the text. Here, the context refers to not only the language being used in neighboring texts, but also the knowledge of the world learned and accumulated by prior experience. This knowledge, which is already stored in memory and which functions in the process of interpreting new information, is called a schema. 1 In sum, communicative language use in general is inextricably related with a strand of schemata and other contextual factors; more importantly, interpersonal factors such as related to both the speaker and the interlocutor and their relationship also significantly contribute to understanding communication and the process of discourse. 2.2 Discourse Analysis To examine language use in interaction, a thorough understanding of discourse and discourse analysis is essential. In addition, we may also need to take into account what particular factors are involved in conducting and analyzing language use in discourse. 1 In the subsequent sections, we shall take a closer look at how schemata have been defined in the literature, and their precise roles in discourse. 14 2.2.1 Definitions of discourse and discourse analysis As briefly mentioned earlier, discourse analysis is a suitable method for illustrating actual language use. Prior to understanding what discourse analysis is, however, we first need to know what discourse refers to. The term discourse has generally been defined as a construction of information about communication that goes beyond the sentence, i.e., the set of utterances and other actions related to language use and communication between participants. A single, precise definition of discourse, however, is difficult to establish, as researchers offer a variety of different views. See the following commonly cited definitions of discourse: a. Schiffrin (1994) (From Celce-Murcia and Olshtain 2002: 4) i) Formal definition: a unit of coherent language consisting of more than one sentence ii) Functional definition: language use b. Celce-Murcia and Olshtain (2000: 2-4) i) The language forms that are produced and interpreted as people communicate with each other ii) An instance of spoken or written language that has describable internal relationships of form and meaning that relate coherently to an external communicative function or purpose and a given audience/interlocutor c. Jaworski and Coupland (2006: 3) Language use relative to social, political, and cultural formations d. Widdowson (2007: 6, 129) i) The complex of communicative purposes as the discourse that underlies the text and motivates its production 15 ii) The meaning that a first person intends to express in producing a text, and that a second person interprets from the text and social practice e. Johnstone (2008: 2) Actual instances of communicative actions in the medium of language Of these, Widdowson (2004, 2007) uniquely distinguishes discourse from “text.” Text, according to Widdowson, is defined as ‘an actual use of language’ that is also purposeful, and as ‘the language produced by a first person in the communication process (2007:4), while discourse is the pragmatic process of meaning negotiation with text being its product (2004:8). In other words, the speaker or writer produces text with an intention or purpose, and the recipient(s) interprets the text to discover its purpose and what it refers to, such as a request or prohibition, etc. Widdowson (2004:7) also notes that the pragmatic process of meaning negotiation always has the possibility of being interpreted differently from what was initially meant by its producer(s). With such an understanding of discourse, the study of such discourse, or ‘discourse analysis,’ has been explained in the literature as “examining aspects of the structure and function of language in use” (Johnstone 2008:4), “the study of how stretches of language in context are perceived as meaningful and unified by their users” (Cook 2003:50), and “focusing on knowledge about language beyond the word, clause, phrase, and sentence that is needed for successful communication” (Paltridge 2010:2). According to Yule (1996:83), discourse analysis focuses on the process by which language is used in context to express the speaker’s intention. To Widdowson (2004, 2007), discourse analysis is understood as analyzing the pragmatic process of encoding and decoding the underlying meaning of texts. In this dissertation, based on Widdowson’s view, I will take discourse as communicative language use, which can be defined as a) a unit of language longer than a single sentence, b) which is regarded as a coherent and meaningful interaction. 16 Yule (1996:84) further explains that exploring what the speaker has in mind is the main concern in the pragmatics of discourse and thus emphasizes the relative social concerns and psychological factors such as ‘background knowledge, beliefs, and expectation’ in the analysis of discourse, including what is unsaid as well as what is overtly expressed. Discourse analysis is, therefore, the study of interpreting text with reference to the many possible interpersonal, sociocultural, and political settings that can influence communication. With this understanding, I shall next describe some concepts important to the process of discourse analysis by taking the pragmatic perspective. 2.2.2 Key concepts in pragmatic-discourse analysis Discourse analysis and pragmatics are inseparable to the extent that both focus on interpreting meaning in interaction. Pragmatics concerns the meaning created when a speaker and a listener communicate (Levinson, 1983; Thomas, 1995; Yule, 1996). Cook (2003: 51) notes that literal meanings are not a main concern of pragmatics; instead, pragmatics aims to investigate the intended meaning that reflects what speakers intend to do with their utterances. 2 As for analyzing this meaning, it is necessary to consider what people mean in a particular context and how that context influences what is said (Yule, 1996:3). Likewise, according to Celce-Murcia and Olshtain (2000:19-20), meaning can only be appropriately interpreted when we take context into consideration. Therefore, an understanding of both context and meaning in interaction is crucial to understanding how language functions. For instance, assume that your interlocutor is telling you, “It’s almost May, but I’m still the same.” To contribute to having successful communication, you supposedly respond by providing a comment on the interlocutor’s statement, such as a clarifying question or some other sort of relevant reaction. To do so, however, there are a number of things that must be taken into consideration: 2 We will further discuss pragmatics in Section 2.3. 17 (a) What are the referents of ‘May’ and ‘the same’? And in what way are they the same? Are they previously mentioned? (b) What is my prior knowledge or information about this topic? Do I share the knowledge with the interlocutor? (c) What does ‘but’ imply here? (d) Whom am I talking with? Should I be polite or casual? Or, should I be nice or honest? (e) When and where is it being said? Of which social conventions should I be aware? (f) What is the general idea, or topic, of the event (e.g., a wedding which is to be held in May) as it exists in the culture of the speech community? As listed above, there are at least three important concepts that emerge when interpreting meaning and responding during communication. 2.2.2.1 Coherence First is the concept of coherence, which enables discourse to be a chain of relevant utterances that is both meaningful and purposeful. Paltridge (2010:2), in explaining coherence, notes that “how discourse is constructed reflects not only the way of expressing meaning but also the way of discourse-organizing for successful communication.” Cook (2003:50) mentions a ‘meaningful and unified context’ when discussing the definition of discourse, and this refers to coherence as well. Similarly, Celce-Murcia and Olshtain (2000:8) state that “coherence contributes to the unity of a piece of discourse such that the individual sentences or utterances hang together and relate to each other.” Connectives, which I also explore in this dissertation, are considered one of the primary devices, e.g. referents, of achieving coherence in discourse. The grammatical contribution of 18 connectives within the text is that of establishing semantic relationships between sentences and, more importantly, the use of connectives pragmatically weighs in interpreting an utterance constructed in a certain way by choosing a particular connective over other possible ones by the speaker, which implies the speaker’s intention. Furthermore, the use of connectives enables us to anticipate what comes next following the presented utterance. The connective e kaciko, for instance, carries the speaker’s intention or attitude beyond its semantic function of establishing relationships between two separate sentences. Intriguingly, the connective e kaciko covers almost every possible semantic relationship, that is, sequential, causal, adversative, and conditional. Moreover, it is one of a set of representative connectives considered to reference these semantic relationships to different degrees. Therefore, herein we shall analyze discourse in which e kaciko appears and how it contributes to achieving coherence in discourse (see Chapter 4) and also discuss the pragmatic nature of e kaciko in comparison with other seemingly compatible connectives (see Chapter 5). Therefore, we will be able to decipher the speaker’s intention when using e kaciko over other competitors as well as how the speaker and interlocutor accomplish meaning negotiation in discourse. Coherence can be achieved in discourse by addressing relevant thoughts. To be relevant, the interlocutor’s utterances should be interpreted based on both the preceding and subsequent utterances while also taking into account the previously mentioned ‘social, political, and cultural formations’ and the ‘interpersonal, sociocultural, and political settings, etc., that influence communication.’ All of these aspects, taken together, constitute context. The participants in communication mutually create and interpret meaning through the use of context. Therefore, understanding a particular context in which utterances occur is crucial to analyzing discourse. 19 2.2.2.2 Context We often say “We need more context,” or “That’s totally out of context” in daily conversation. But what does context actually refer to? Context is in fact a pervasive and comprehensive term in discourse analysis and in studies of pragmatics. Context is generally seen as referring to the preceding and subsequent linguistic text in a given text, all of which comprise an utterance. However, context is also comprised by the participants, time, place, and speech community, etc., in which it occurs. Context has been defined variously among researchers. Halliday (1991:5) defines context as “the events that are going on around when people speak.” Here, the phrase ‘the events’ refers to inclusive concepts similar to those indicated by other researchers. According to Cook (2003:45), for example, context includes various kinds of factors, such as tone of voice and facial expressions; the relationship between speakers and their age, sex, and social status; the time and place; cultural background, and so forth. Paltridge (2010:41) indicates that context refers to the physical context, the social context, as well as the participants’ mental worlds. Allott (2010:38-42) points out that it is difficult to precisely define what context is since it broadly includes facts about a) the immediate physical environment where the utterance happens, b) the prior discourse, and c) the participants’ psychological status, such as their beliefs, opinions, and habits, etc. Cook (2003:49) indicates that context refers to “factors outside a stretch of language under consideration but relevant to its interpretation, e.g., the situation, paralinguistic knowledge, other texts, or other parts of the same text.” In sum, context involves all relevant factors which contribute to establishing communication. Thus, in this dissertation, context is defined as including the following: (a) the linguistic environment such as the preceding and subsequent utterances; (b) the interpersonal relationships between interlocutors; and 20 (c) the physical-situational understandings, such as the sociocultural and political factors that influence communication. Drawing on this understanding of context, we will analyze the use of e kaciko functioning as a connective as well as a SCE. With respect to (a), by taking into account what utterances precede and follow in its co-text, together with how participants exchange utterances, we can see how e kaciko is collocated with other forms within each utterance. With respect to (b), since the construction e kaciko exclusively occurs in spoken discourse, it is anticipated that interpersonal factors comprise the pragmatic nature of e kaciko. Lastly, language use inevitably reflects external factors, as described in (c). Except for the impromptu occurrence of co-text, the tendency of collocations, (b), and (c) all comprise the relevant schemata, which I describe in detail below. 2.2.2.3 Schemata Lastly, the concept of schemata is also important in analyzing discourse. In this section, we shall introduce the general description of schemata and their role in discourse. Schemata- related concepts will be also taken into account in order to present how they contribute to constructing discourse. The coining of the term schema (plural: schemata) is generally credited to Bartlett in his description of his experiment (Bartlett, 1932). In the experiment, subjects were instructed to rewrite a North American Indian folk tale, ‘The War of the Ghosts,’ after reading it. It turned out that the participants each reformulated the same story in different ways. Details in the reformulated stories "fit in with a subject's preformed interests and tendencies," whereas other details were not included or “rationalized by linking them together and so rendering them apparently coherent, or linking given details with details not actually present" (Bartlett, 1932:93- 94). Some of the missing parts that participants could not recall from the original story were 21 reformulated in accordance with their preexisting knowledge or ideas, and the rewritten versions still achieved coherence as a single narrative. This reveals that in our memory there is a structured form of reality which integrates the fragmentary pieces of a story. In this sense, Bartlett (1932:201) referred to schemata as “an active organization of past reactions, or past experience.” Widdowson (2004:55, 170) treats these rewritten versions of stories as evidence of how interpretation is mediated through socioculturally informed schematic preconceptions, and notes that one’s “own cultural structures of reality” can be understood as schemata. Yule (1996:5) states that schemata refer to “a source of regularity in language use” and takes as an example ‘an apartment schema,’ which has a kitchen, bedroom, and bathroom, etc. (Ibid.: 85). That is, a schema refers to prior knowledge that we have acquired through experiencing the world in various ways. Occasionally, communication largely relies on schematic knowledge to interpret the speaker’s intended meaning, in particular when it is difficult to seek information from a given context. Widdowson (2004, 2007) discusses discourse analysis with a significant reliance on the concept of schemata. In fact, he defines schemata over the course of multiple pages as follows: (a) A mental construct of taken-for-granted assumptions about how reality is ordered (ideational schemata) and how communication is managed (interpersonal schemata) (2004:132) (b) Schematic knowledge refers to knowledge of the schemata that are operative within a particular community of language users (2004:132) (c) A schema is a construct of familiar knowledge (2007:28) (d) Schemata are representations in the mind of what is familiar or customary (2007:31) Widdowson (2004:43) also considers schemata in three dimensions. First, it is a cognitive construct in that a schema is a mental construct of personal experience. In the same vein, Bartlett 22 (1932) treats a schema as a matter of psychology. Second, it is a social construct. In Widdowson’s words, this social dimension comprises “one’s words keyed into his culturally specific schematic world,” which means that the reality in a particular community is ordered by customs and shared experiences. Schemata as a cognitive and social construct can be referred to as ideational schemata. Third, schemata form an interpersonal construct because a schema also mirrors how people interact with each other and what kinds of conventions they build through such interaction. Similar to the views of Widdowson (2004, 2007), Hedge (2000:411) explains schematic knowledge as “knowledge, gained from experience, of the way the world is organized, which is held as mental representations in the mind,” while Baker and Ellece (2011:124) regard a schema as information that is stored as packages in our long-term memories and used when interpreting social phenomena. Hence, schemata represent sets of individual sociocultural values, expectations, conventional thoughts about others, objects, events, and settings in the world, or, in a narrower sense, in a particular community. More importantly, language use inevitably reflects this schematic knowledge. This aspect of schemata is well described in Cook (1989:73): Schemata are data structures, representing stereotypical patterns, which we retrieve from memory and employ in our understanding of discourse As presented thus far, understanding the concept of schema requires an understanding of individual knowledge. As for how knowledge relates to discourse, interactions consisting of utterances can be regarded as the processing of new knowledge in relation to existing knowledge. Moreover, Widdowson (2004:27) clarifies this point when he states that language use is always related to the context that refers to what we know and believe in our heads; it is this context that we can refer to as schematic structures of knowledge. Let us now see how schematic knowledge is involved in discourse through an example: 23 (2) College Student Sale To most of us, the phrase in (2) would hardly be interpreted as an announcement that someone is “selling a college student.” Instead, we process this information to mean that there is a special offer for college students, or that student items are on sale somewhere. This sort of interpretation is more likely being activated by ruling out other possibilities as we rely on contextual cues and schemata such as prior experience, knowledge, or sociocultural understanding with regard to such an occasion. In addition, as a recipient of such information, we are often expected to be accustomed to particular linguistic styles or formats, such as those used in advertising. In this regard, Tannen and Wallat (1987) employ the term “knowledge schema,” and define it as “participants’ expectations about people, objects, events, and settings in the world.” In the next section we will take a closer look at how communication participants behave in accordance with these expectations, and thereby how schematic knowledge is projected in discourse. As described above, schematic knowledge carries great significance in discourse because it serves as a context that is obviously not limited to just on-site knowledge which is situationally presented in the ‘here and now.’ Celce-Murcia and Olshtain (2000:11) point out that in communication participants rely on their prior knowledge, i.e., schemata, which may or may not be shared. If the knowledge is shared knowledge, then it plays an important role in everyday language use, especially when the participants in an interaction are familiar with each other. See the following example: (3) A: I ran into John yesterday and he looked so different! B: I know. I feel so bad for him. 24 The communicative exchange in (3) can occur because the speakers have shared knowledge about the person named ‘John’ and his recent status. If there is an assumption among the speakers that a sufficient amount of knowledge is shared, then meanings can be shaped through discourse despite every detail not being explicitly uttered. Therefore, Speaker B can infer what Speaker A implies by the word ‘different’ when describing ‘John’; that is, both know what John was like before, and how he is doing now. In other words, the speakers’ shared knowledge sufficiently enters the discourse as context. As Widdowson (2004: 26) notes, among the contexts of knowledge that can be brought to a discourse, some knowledge that the utterance producer assumes to be shared is typically related to more general schematic structures of knowledge. Examples of such shared knowledge include general knowledge of natural phenomena, typical sequences of real-life incidents, and human behavior. That is, just as schematic knowledge enables the speaker to assume, presuppose, or expect something, and thus imply an intention in his or her utterance, the interlocutor likewise activates his or her schematic knowledge to interpret the incoming utterance and infer the speaker’s intention. Furthermore, to successfully realize discourse it is necessary to apply and adapt the participants’ preconceived schematic expectations or assumptions. In this process, therefore, more than one discourse can be derived from a text. Thus far, we have looked at what a schema is and how schematic knowledge is involved in the process of discourse. Schema or schematic knowledge can be referred to as structured knowledge, which reflects, in a narrow sense, socially shared conventional thoughts, customary reality, or knowledge which is mutually agreed upon to some extent within a particular community, or, in a wider sense, among unspecified people who perceive naturally occurring phenomena and universal facts about the human mind and behaviors. Appreciating the importance of such knowledge, researchers in the field of pragmatics, discourse analysis, language learning, and teaching have begun to address issues of language use by placing greater importance on the concept of schematic knowledge. By proposing his cooperative principles, for example, Grice (1975) accounts for the way we utilize our schematic knowledge when 25 constructing conversations and how we regulate that knowledge. Cook (1989) also takes note of how knowledge interacts with language to create discourse. Because schematic knowledge comes into discourse as context, it is considered essential to the act of encoding and decoding meanings among participants. In other words, it is possible to integrate new knowledge with schematic knowledge, thereby creating coherent discourse. Given that schematic knowledge is partly comprised of socio-cultural values, it is only natural that it would vary across cultures, speech communities, and even across individuals in a single community due to idiosyncrasies with respect to personal beliefs and experiences, etc. Interpersonal relationships, which are always relative, are also influential in constructing schematic knowledge. For the same reason, contexts may have variables which take on different values as the occasion requires (Widdowson, 2004:44), a situation which can be considered parallel to language change in terms of language use and meaning. 2.3 Studies of pragmatics Within the tradition of ordinary language philosophy in the 1950s and 1960s, in contrast to the primary interests at the time, some scholars paid special attention to natural language use rather than to artificial language. Therefore, studies of pragmatics mainly focus on language use in actual interaction and the fact that real-world language use often implies more than what is actually said. Levinson (2000:37) states that the pragmatic perspective is essential in discourse analysis in that the pragmatic principles of language use enable us to ‘read in’ utterances beyond their conventional or literal meanings. Levinson (1983, 2000) defines pragmatics as the study of meaning “by virtue of, or dependent on, the use of language.” Similarly, Yule (1996), in his definition of pragmatics, affirms that pragmatics is concerned with the study of meaning as communicated by a speaker (or writer) and interpreted by a listener (or reader). Yule (1996:4) also states that the advantage of 26 studying language from the pragmatic perspective is that we can reveal speakers’ intended meanings, their assumptions, their purposes or goals, and the kinds of speech acts, e.g., requests. Onodera (2004) compares semantics to pragmatics by stating that semantics is the study of the meaning of sentences, whereas pragmatics is the study of the meaning of sentences “in context.” Thus, we may conclude that pragmatics is the study of meaning in interactional contexts by analyzing language use in discourse. In the next sections I shall introduce major scholars in the area of pragmatics and their chief areas of focus. 2.3.1 Influential studies in Pragmatics Two philosophers, J. L. Austin and H. P. Grice, are considered to be the original leading scholars in the field of pragmatics. They laid the groundwork for many of the accomplishments of the field. In particular, Austin developed his theory of speech acts and Grice proposed the theory of conversational implicatures, and both are considered landmarks of the pragmatic theory of language use. 2.3.1.1 J. L. Austin (1962) J. L. Austin paid attention to the nature of utterances in the sense that utterances are often used to perform certain types of acts. In particular, Austin stressed the fact that utterances carry social functions in accordance with conventions, e.g., promises or requests. In this regard, Austin (1970a:251) states that all the possible forces of utterances must be discovered to identify in what ways utterances are made and to clarify whether they are created to perform actions. Austin’s key notion is put forth in speech act theory (SAT). According to Austin (1962), an utterance includes three different kinds of meanings: locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary, as follows: 27 (4) Locutionary act: the utterance of a sentence with determinate sense and reference Illocutionary act: the making of a statement, offer, promise, etc., in uttering a sentence, by virtue of the conventional force associated with it (or with its explicit performative paraphrase) Perlocutionary act: the bringing about of effects on the audience by means of uttering the sentence, such effects being special to the circumstances of the utterance (following Levinson 1983, 1997:236) Based on (4), observe (5): (5) At first glance, the utterance in (5) is as simple and demonstrative as it appears. The locutionary meaning refers to the literal meaning of a word, phrase, or utterance. Therefore, assuming that an interlocutor only perceives the locutionary meaning of (5), the utterance can be literally interpreted as the speaker stating that the temperature is low outside. However, in most cases we do not form utterances without any intention or purpose. Instead, we produce utterances with a particular intention or function in mind (Yule, 1996:48). In fact, there are multiple interpretations that can be made of any given situation. (6) a. So, let’s stay home. b. So, please close the door behind you. (6a) and (6b) show the speaker’s two different intentions out of many other possibilities that s/he encodes when stating (5); these are the illocutionary meanings of the utterance. Decoding the speaker’s intention by choosing an appropriate illocutionary meaning out of various possible 28 meanings depends on the context in which the utterance occurs and the people involved in the communication. (7) A: Let’s go to the movies. B: It’s cold outside. (Intention: So, let’s just stay home. Speaker B in (7) utters (5) as a response to speaker A’s suggestion instead of saying something more direct such as Okay or Let’s not do it. Yule (1996:3) indicates that the intended meaning has more to do with the analysis of what people actually mean by their utterances than what the words or phrases in those utterances might mean by themselves. As indicated in the bracket in (7B), (6a) is a more appropriate illocutionary meaning than (6b). See another use of utterance (5). (8) A: (coming inside the house while leaving the door open) B: It’s cold outside! (Intention: So, please close the door behind you. A-1: I know! A-2: Oh, sorry. (Closing the door) Speaker B chooses to utter (8B) instead of requesting a certain action directly, which is the illocutionary meaning (6b). If speaker A continues constructing this discourse by uttering (8A-1), it may be hard to say that this communication is successfully made. Otherwise, this set of communication may proceed smoothly by opting to use the response (8A-2). The subsequent action of “closing the door,” which is called the perlocutionary meaning, is performed when speaker A is capable of perceiving contextual clues from the given situation and reading his or her interlocutor’s facial expressions and tone of voice correctly. The perlocutionary meaning is the effect the utterance has on the listener; therefore, the perlocutionary meaning is often referred 29 to as the perlocutionary effect. In this example, if the listener agrees and proposes staying home (6a), then the perlocutionary effect is present. 2.3.1.2 H.P. Grice (1967; 1975) As we discussed above, Austin (1962)’s work concerned the performing of speech acts through utterances. Grice, on the other hand, rather focused on the distinction between saying and meaning. Furthermore, he was concerned with not only how speakers implied meanings, but also how listeners understood the intended meanings. Austin and Grice both agreed, however, in their assumption that participants are cooperative in effective communication. This assumption was stated as the cooperative principle (CP) by Grice (1975): The Cooperative Principle (Grice 1975:45) Make your contribution such as required, at the state at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. Grice (1975) elaborated on this principle through significant regulations, which he called maxims. See the following descriptions: (9) Maxims: (following Grice, 1975:45-46) Quantity 1. Make your contribution as informative as is required. 2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. Quality 1. Do not say what you believe to be false. 2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. 30 Relation Be relevant. Manner 1. Avoid obscurity of expression. 2. Avoid ambiguity. 3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity). 4. Be orderly. These four maxims contribute to language interactively functioning between participants. Even though we are supposedly cooperative in making a conversational contribution “such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange” in which we are engaged (Grice 1975:45), on some occasions we either intentionally or negligently choose not to obey the maxim(s). As Grice elaborates, for example, people may flout the maxim(s) 3 , and this flouting also serves to denote the speaker’s true intention; therein, implicature is generated. With an implicature, the speaker aims to convey additional effects other than the literal meaning of the utterance. With reference to implicature, Grice's thoughts on conversation lie on another distinction between what s/he says and what s/he ‘implicates’ by uttering a sentence. Thereby, Grice (1975:26-30) discusses another theory of meaning as to two types of implicature. The term conventional implicature is proposed as opposed to the term conversational implicature. According to Grice, the former arises from the speaker’s inference based on social conventions, common ideas, etc., whereas the latter directly comes from the meaning of a particular word. In addition, Grice’s (1975) implicature is usually thought to refer to an inferential meaning in that the interlocutor is invited to infer the speaker’s intention regarding what is being 3 According to Grice (1975:49), speakers may flout a maxim, that is, speakers “may blatantly fail to fulfill it… trying to mislead” hearers. It is important to note that there can be various communicational settings in which speakers may or may not follow CP, either intentionally or unostentatiously. 31 said. Levinson (1983:40, 97) indicates that conversational implicatures result in pragmatic meanings. Traugott and Dasher (2002:5) define the term “invited inferences” in terms that invited inferences are chosen “to elide the complexities of communication in which the speaker/writer evokes implicatures and invites the addressee/reader to infer them.” Therefore, the terms, implicatures, inferential meanings, invited inferences, speakers’ intentions, and pragmatic meanings all refer to similar entities, that is, the possible meanings behind an utterance rather than what the linguistic expression literally means. As Bousfield (2008:21) points out, when studying the issues of politeness and impoliteness, the concept of implicature is also fundamental because speakers are often put under communicational situations where they must decide whether to follow Grice’s maxims and CP. Levinson (1997:38) notes that the theory of implicature contributes “immeasurably to tease apart the semantic and the pragmatic content of words and sentences.” He also argues that we often make pragmatic inferences to decode implied meanings, and that the implicature associated with a particular word becomes ‘conventionalized.’ Keeping this in mind, let us now observe what conventionalized implicature(s) the construction e kaciko would achieve in present- day Korean discourse. 2.3.2 Practice of implicature in discourse Naturally constructed language use in interaction is less likely to be as neat as what Grice (1975) assumed through his principles and rules. In natural language discourse, we often say too little or too much; we speak in vague or allusive manners, or we talk about something irrelevant either on purpose or unknowingly. We may even lie or say something in an unexpected way to imply a particular intention, e.g., when being sarcastic. This suggests that language use by flouting Grice’s maxim(s) may still result in efficient language use, such as by delivering the speaker’s intention, or taking a social stance while being polite, etc. It should be understood that 32 these types of utterances demonstrate that language use is largely related to social acts. Brown and Levinson (1977:61) point out that the various aspects of language use are characterized by different cultural habits and/or norms with regard to speech styles and co-operative principles; that the principles underlie the use of particular words, which are ‘of a social sort’; and that language use involves pragmatic strategies such as politeness. This will be further elucidated when we discuss the pragmatic use of e kaciko in the subsequent chapters. According to Cook (1989:74-75), misjudgments and mismatches of schemata are often found in cases of communication involving participants from different cultures. He also believes this to be the case in foreign language classrooms. Mindsets and patterns of behavior are reflected in language use and thus the ways in which implicatures are created inevitably contain unfamiliarity to some extent. Hence, getting accustomed to the various schemata present in the target language and culture is important to learning the language effectively and acquiring the knowledge of the language system. In this sense, Cook (1989:75) suggests that integrating knowledge of the language system together with schematic knowledge is fundamental in the creation and understanding of coherent discourse, and thus relating them to each other is a necessary component of learning and teaching foreign languages. However, miscommunication is not limited to situations of foreign language use. Even within a same-speech community, miscommunications may occur or communication may take longer than expected if there are wrong assumptions or misjudgments made in terms of the shared knowledge between participants. Let us look again at example (3), while slightly revising it: (10) A1: I ran into John yesterday and he looked so different! B1: I know. I feel so sad for him. A2: Why? What do you mean by sad? B2: Oh, I thought you meant his face looked gaunt because of the divorce. A3: He divorced?!! Oh, that’s too bad! I didn’t know that happened to him. He seemed to 33 lose weight, and I thought he looked nicer than before! The discourse in (10) addresses the issue of how, in everyday language use, and even between acquaintances, miscommunication can easily occur when referents become mismatched during discourse proceeds. In light of Grice (1975)’s cooperative principles, if particular information is presumably shared, then it should be omitted because it is considered redundant to mention it. Therefore, in the example above, Speaker A decides to omit certain information because Speaker A assumes that Speaker B knows what ‘different’ refers to in this context, but unfortunately this is not the case. However, there is also the possibility of repair, whereby the discourse participants can negotiate the contextual convergence required for successful understanding, as shown in A2~A3 (Widdowson, 2004: 23). Even though the mismatched referents regarding ‘in what way he is different from before’ lengthen the conversation, this is a common way in which discourse proceeds. 2.4 Summary In this chapter, we first discussed the fact that our everyday language use involves diverse pragmatic factors beyond simply delivering semantic messages. Given that our utterances often imply more than appears to be on the surface, we reviewed how meanings are created and interpreted in interaction with reference to studies of discourse and pragmatics. As pointed out previously, language use must be analyzed at the level of discourse by taking into account pragmatic factors that have been thoroughly discussed by scholars. To begin with, we looked into what discourse is and the key concepts therein, such as context, coherence, and schemata, which are related in discourse analysis to the pragmatic use of language. Thereafter, we delved into how the area of pragmatic studies was established by introducing the most influential scholars in pragmatics, J. L. Austin (Speech act theory) and H. P. Grice (Implicatures and the CP) and their 34 main accomplishments. Their essential research interest lies in what meanings emerge ‘beyond saying.’ Accordingly, the focus of studying language becomes different from that of other linguistic realms such as semantics due to its focus on the language used in interaction, language users, and the given contexts, including social and other contexts. Therefore, it was seen that language use that implies the speaker’s intention cannot be neatly constructed according to the complexity that we as humans bring to communication through our minds and relationships, etc. This dissertation aims to illustrate the pragmatic uses of e kaciko in actual discourse of present-day Korean. Therefore, actual usage (as opposed to introspective research confined to the semantic level) of the construction will be examined as not only a connective but also a SCE. That is, this research focuses on elucidating the multi-fold semantic functions, and more importantly the pragmatic nature, of the construction e kaciko in diverse contexts by analyzing real corpus data. Given the fact that the construction e kaciko is developed from the lexeme kacita, by taking advantage of the methods of discourse analysis and pragmatics we shall provide a solid account for its functional shifts and explore how and in what contexts the construction e kaciko achieves its pragmatic functions, as well as how schemata factor in the use of e kaciko. In the subsequent chapters, I will examine the construction e kaciko and discuss language change and grammaticalization as the groundwork for a pragmatic-corpus analysis of e kaciko in discourse. 35 CHAPTER 3 USE OF THE VERB KACITA AND THE CONSTRUCTION E KACIKO 3.1 Introduction In the previous chapter, I introduced key notions of pragmatics and discourse analysis, including those of Austin (1962) and Grice (1967; 1975), to use as the theoretical framework in this dissertation. In addition, the construction e kaciko seems to lie along a continuum of change, given that it shows a functional shift from a connective to a SCE. Furthermore, e kaciko shows diverse distributions, appearing in sequential, causal, adversative, and conditional contexts. It also occurs in the position of sentential ending, which generally carries grammatical information such as an indication of the sentence type, e.g., demonstrative or interrogative, along with an expression of particular meaning with respect to the speaker’s attitude about the content, e.g., indicating that the speaker newly learned about the content, the relevant interpersonal relationships, or the text register, etc. Hence, the SCE e kaciko must be distal from the connective e kaciko. Neither kaciko nor the connective e kaciko have acquired full grammatical status as a particle, connective, or SCE in standard Korean grammar. Thus, despite the fact that studies on connectives and SCEs are one of the most frequently conducted types of research in Korean linguistics, the relatively newly emerged construction e kaciko has been paid very little attention. Yet, e kaciko, as both a connective and SCE, displays wide distributions in present-Korean discourse, appearing synchronically across many forms of discourse regardless of the speaker’s gender, age, or geographical area, etc. Therefore, the use of kaciko and e kaciko remains 36 unexplored compared to other connectives. In this chapter, I shall first review how kaciko and e kaciko have been studied in the Korean linguistics literature. 3.2 Previous studies of kaciko and e kaciko Previous accounts of kaciko and e kaciko can be categorized into two types. First, e kaciko is viewed by some researchers as an auxiliary verb (Choi, 1961; Lee, 1961). Second, other researchers focus on kaciko in terms of its change from having a concrete meaning to an abstract meaning (Kim, 1987; Im, 1994). Choi (1961:406) briefly mentions e kaciko as being an auxiliary verb which retains the results of the action denoted by the main verb. (11) a. Kuli hay kaciko etey ssu-na? Like that do-E KACIKO where use-CPINTR ‘What would you do by doing that?’ b. Na-nun kikyeyhak-ul paywe kaciko kokwuk-ulo I -NOM mechanical engineering-ACC learn -E KACIKO homeland- DIR Tolaka-keyss-ta. 4 Return-SUP-WE ‘I will study mechanical engineering and then return home.’ The meanings of ‘being done like that’ in (11a) and ‘study mechanical engineering’ in (11b) are maintained and connected to the events of ‘using it for something’ in (11a) and ‘returning home’ in (11b). Unfortunately, Choi (1961) only provides two instances of e kaciko without any further discussion. 4 These examples are from Choi (1961:406), and the translations are mine, based on his description. 37 Kim (1987) offers a more detailed discussion of e kaciko. He discusses the verb kaci as well as the connective e kaciko, and he also introduces different uses of kaa, which is regarded as a dialect form of the verb kaciko. 5 See (12) below. (12) I ton- ulo kacwuko chayk sa-la (Kim, 1987: 33) This money-INST KACIKO book buy -IMP:CP ‘Buy a book with this money.’ Kim (1987) proposes that since the instrumental particle ulo tends to occur with kaciko, ulo affects kaciko and thus kaciko came to have the meaning of ‘a means,’ thereby functioning as a particle. Sentence (12) above, from Kim (1987:33), however, seems questionable in terms of its grammaticality and acceptability. Indeed, the Basic Korean Dictionary from the National Institute of the Korean Language specifies two usages of kaciko. Let us take a closer look at the first description and two examples from the dictionary. (13) “Kaciko emphasizes that the preceding word becomes a means or a method” a. Yocum-un kikyey-lul kaciko nongsa-lul cis-nun-ta Nowadays -TOP machine-ACC KACIKO agriculture-ACC farm-PRS-WE b. *Yocum-un kikyey-lul nongsa-lul cis-nun-ta Nowadays-TOP machine-ACC agriculture-ACC farm-PRS-WE c. Yocum- un kikyey kaciko nongsa-lul cis-nun-ta Nowadays-TOP machine KACIKO agriculture-ACC farm-PRS-WE d. Yocum-un kikyey-lo nongsa-lul cis-nun-ta 5 Although Kim (1987) claims that kaa and e kaa are grammaticalized forms of kaciko and e kaciko, respectively; instead, these two forms are more easily considered dialect forms of the southeastern part of Korea. Im (1994:61) also notes that the form of ka(a) which is derived from kaciko is frequently found in southeast areas of Korea. 38 Nowadays-TOP machine-ULO agriculture-ACC farm-PRS-WE ‘Nowadays (people) farm with machines.’ e. Payk wen-ul kaciko mwe-l sa-ni? One hundred CL-ACC KACIKO what-ACC buy-CPINTR f. *Payk wen-ul mwe-l sa-ni? One hundred CL-ACC what-ACC buy-CPINTR g. Payk wen kaciko mwe-l sa-ni? One hundred CL KACIKO what-ACC buy-CPINTR h. Payk wen-ulo mwe-l sa-ni? One hundred CL-ULO what-ACC buy-CPINTR ‘What can (I/you/she/he/they/we) buy with one hundred won (approximately ten cents)?’ Sentences (13a) and (13g) are quoted from the dictionary, while the rest of the examples were newly created to examine whether kaciko tends to occur with other particles. Including (13a) and (13g), the dictionary provides two examples of kaciko related to the first usage: (a) Noun + Accusative particle lul + kaciko and (b) Noun + ø + kaciko. Our examination through these examples reveals variant usages of kaciko along with other particles. First, in accordance with our judgment with reference to (13a), the co-occurrence of the instrumental particle ulo with kaciko was not found among the examples provided by the dictionary. Second, kaciko can be used with the accusative particle lul as in (13a) and (13e), whereas it cannot co-occur with the instrumental particle ulo. Third, kaciko per se functions to indicate the fact that the preceding noun is a tool or a means, that is, ‘by means of machines’ in (13c) and ‘by means of ten cents’ in (13g). Fourth, in the same context, the instrumental particle ulo replaces the instrumental use of kaciko as in (13d) and (13h), whereas the accusative particle lul cannot serve as a replacement, as in (13b) and (13f). Now we will look at the second usage of kaciko provided in the dictionary. 39 (14) “Kaciko emphasizes that the preceding word becomes the receiving end of being talked about” a. Ne-lul kaciko kwaynhi uysimhay-ss-kwuna You-ACC KACIKO in vain suspect-PAST-CPE b. Ne-lul kwaynhi uysimhay-ss-kwuna You-CC in vain suspect-PAST-CPE c. Ne kaciko kwaynhi uysimhay-ss-kwuna You KACIKO in vain suspect-PAST-CPE d. *Ne-lo kwaynhi uysimha-ss-kwuna You-ULO in vain suspect-PAST-CPE ‘I suspected you in vain.’ e. Sasohan mwuncey-lul kaciko nemwu kominha-ci ma- la Trivial matter -ACC KACIKO too agonize-NEG-IMP:CP f. Sasohan mwuncey-lul nemwu kominha-ci ma-la Trivial matter-ACC too agonize-NEG-IMP:CP g. Sasohan mwuncey kaciko nemwu kominha-ci ma-la Trivial matter KACIKO too agonize-NEG-IMP:CP h. Sasohan mwuncey-lo nemwu kominha-ci ma-la Trivial matter-ULO too agonize-NEG-IMP:CP ‘Don’t agonize too much over the trivial matter.’ For the same reasons given in the above examination of (13), examples (14a) and (14e) are quoted from the dictionary and compared with the other newly created others in groups (14a)~(14d) and (14e)~(14h). According to the description in (14), this usage of kaciko functions to emphasize the preceding noun in that the noun becomes the topic of the sentence. The kaciko of (14) shows similar overall distributions to (13) in terms of the co-occurrence of kaciko with 40 either the accusative particle lul or the instrumental particle ulo. First, this usage of kaciko also does not allow the combination of the instrumental particle ulo with kaciko. Second, kaciko can be used with the accusative particle lul, as in (14a) and (14e). Third, unlike the cases shown in (13), kaciko can be replaced by the accusative particle lul, as in (14b) and (14f), which is in accordance with the function of kaciko for this usage. Fourth, kaciko per se functions to emphasize the fact that the preceding noun is the topic of the sentence; here, it does this by indicating ‘by having you’ in (14c) and ‘by having the trivial matter’ in (14g). Interestingly, however, while the use of the instrumental particle ulo in the same context cannot replace kaciko in (14e), it can replace it in (14h). The difference between (14e) and (14h) lies in the fact that in (14h) the noun mwuncey ‘matter’ is possibly interpreted as either a ‘topic’ or a ‘means.’ Accordingly, it is less convincing to conclude that kaciko has achieved the status of an instrumental marker due to the effect of the instrumental particle ulo as argued in Kim (1983) (See (12)). Kim (1983) also examines the connective a kaa as an equivalent to e kaciko, and compares it with ni(kka). See (15) below. (15) a. Na-nun chayk-ul ilk-e pwa kaa al-ass-nite I-NOM book-ACC read-have done-E KACIKO know-PAST-CDE ‘As a result of reading the book, I came to know about it.’ b. Na-nun chayk-ul ilk-e po-(u)i al-site I-NOM book-ACC read-have done-NI(KKA) know-CDE ‘While reading the book, I came to know (learn) about it.’ 6 According to Kim (1983), the preceding clause in (15a) is a ‘resultative cause/reason,’ whereas the clause in (15b) indicates a ‘procedural cause/reason.’ Although it is not elaborated in detail in 6 These examples are from Kim (1987:36), and the translations are mine, based on his argument. Note that the endings site and nite are forms used in the southeastern part of Korea. 41 Kim (1983), it can be understood that the difference between e kaciko and ni(kka) lies in the speaker’s cognitive process of relating the two clauses ‘I read the book’ and ‘I came to know about it.’ Yet, the argument is unclear because two different sentential endings occur in each sentence, as seen in (15a) and (15b), which possibly result in the two different interpretations of (15a) and (15b). Moreover, because the entire discourses in which these two connectives appear are not provided, it seems difficult to grasp the true natures, and thus the distinctive characteristics, of kaciko and ni(kka), based on the sentences alone. Since the 1990s, some linguists have begun to recognize utterances including e kaciko as examples of spoken use, and thus have taken different approaches when discussing e kaciko and the verb kaci. One of the most notable such studies is Im (1994), who considers e kaciko to be a connective. Im (1994) investigates this use of e kaciko by analyzing discourse data. He indicates that e kaciko can be mostly replaced by ese or ko, but that it characteristically functions as a discourse marker. See the following examples from Im (1994:74). (16) a. Chelswu-ka nwuwe-se ca-ko iss-ess-ta Chelswu-NOM lie down-ESE sleep-PROG-PAST-WE b. Chelswu-ka nwuwe kaciko ca-ko iss-ess-ta Chelswu-NOM lie down E KACIKO sleep-PROG-PAST-WE ‘Chelswu was lying and sleeping.’ Im’s (1994) first claim regarding e kaciko is that, as a connective, it functions to emphasize the completion of the action verb in the preceding clause, which is ‘to lie down’ in (16). However, the difference between nwuwese and nwuwe kaciko with respect to the degree of completion of the action of ‘lying down’ is unclear. Is it even possible to measure the completeness of ‘lying down,’ especially when the action is accompanied by the action of ‘sleeping?’ This argument can be supported further with empirical evidence, such as analyzing an entire discourse. However, 42 with only the two examples (16a) and (16b), it is not plausible to assert that in (16a) the action ‘to lie down’ is less complete and emphasized than in (16b). Instead, e kaciko must be chosen by the speaker to convey a certain intention, which is not indicated by ese. Hence, the clarification of such purposeful uses of e kaciko is a main concern of this paper (see Chapters 4 and 5). Im (1994:75) also examines e kaciko from a discourse perspective. See the following example: (17) Taa ili pakkwe kaciko kulay inca kulay kaciko All like this change E KACIKO so now it is so-E KACIKO ‘(They) all changed like this, so now it is (so)…’ According to Im, in (17) e kaciko functions to retain the information of the preceding clause and connects the information to the subsequent clause, which enables the speaker to gain time to formulate the next utterance by using e kaciko. However, without adequate discourse, the actual message the speaker intends to deliver is unclear through this isolated sentence because (17) lacks referents of the expressions ‘all,’ ‘this,’ and ‘it is so.’ Furthermore, it is also unclear whether these two kinds of e kaciko function identically in this sentence. A further point emphasized by Im (1994:75-76) is the claim that e kaciko is a redundant element in a sentence and is used by speakers who are relatively poor at speech management, or less educated. Again, however, no statistical evidence is provided to support this argument. In fact, this argument can be refuted by the examples presented in Chapter 4 extracted from corpus data, including speech by a former president of Korea, a pastor, and journalists, etc. Lee (1998) investigated the grammaticalization process of kaciko and its meaning shift of ‘comitative > instrument> cause.’ Lee (1998) states that this meaning shift of kaciko indicates that e kaciko achieves an abstract meaning as it loses its concrete meaning. In addition, it is also noted that kaciko takes a syntactic transformation to e kaciko, whereas e kaciko functions to indicate the completion status of the preceding verb while emphasizing the meaning of the verb 43 with which it is conjugated. Including Lee (1998), previous studies have often focused on discussing the fact that kaciko underwent the process of grammaticalization and revealing the semantic meaning of the connective e kaciko. To date, the previous studies on the grammatical construction e kaciko left many open issues for future investigation, including: (a) Previous discussions were only confined to the grammaticalization of kaciko and the connective use of e kaciko; (b) With respect to the connective e kaciko, previous studies mostly focused on revealing its semantic meanings by virtue of comparing it with other connectives, usually ese; 7 (d) Even though previous studies took a pragmatic approach, they were limited to fragmental arguments because the examinations were only concerned with a single sentence in which e kaciko is used; (e) E kaciko in the literature has only been discussed in terms of functioning as a causal and sequential connective. Therefore, the emergence of the connective e kaciko in adversative and conditional contexts has yet to be investigated; and (f) To date, not a single study has paid attention to the fact that e kaciko functions as a SCE in Korean discourse although it is pervasively used by Korean speakers; indeed, the SCE e kaciko functions distinctively from the connective e kaciko. It seems that kaciko and e kaciko deserve a more thorough investigation because they provide strong evidence of the fact that Korean grammar continues to undergo a process of expansion by virtue of functional shifts from old grammatical items or constructions to new ones. In this regard, I will delve into the grammaticalized nature and the interrelated paths of grammaticalization that kaciko and e kaciko have been undergoing, mainly from the perspective of discourse pragmatic 7 We will review the connective ese and nikka and compare them with e kaciko in various contexts in Chapter 6 to reveal the differences between them. 44 phenomenon. In addition, I will also discuss how kaciko and e kaciko underwent pragmaticalization as they shifted from the instrumental particle use of kaciko to the connective construction as well as the SCE e kaciko. 3.3 Use of the verb kacita The current and subsequent sections focus on the uses of kaciko and e kaciko with reference to the study of grammaticalization. First, let us examine the use of kaciko in Korean discourse by discussing the verb kacita from which the construction e kaciko is derived. The construction e kaciko consists of three elements: the suffix e, the verb stem kaci, and the sequential connective ko 8 ; the verb stem kaci is equivalent to ‘to take’ or ‘to possess’ in English. (18) a. Casinkam-ul kaci-myen mos hal il-i eps-ta Confidence-ACC KACI-CONN NEG do work-NOM not exist-WE ‘If you have confidence, there is nothing you can’t do.’ b. Ay-lul kacye-se swipkey phikonhayci-n-ta Baby-ACC KACI-CONN easily become tired-PRS-WE (lit. I get easily tired because I have a baby.’) ‘I get easily tired because I’m pregnant.’ c. Ton-ul manhi kacye-to pwulhaynghan salam-i iss-ta Money-ACC much KACI-CONN unhappy person-NOM exist-WE ‘There are people who are unhappy even though they have a lot of money.’ 8 The suffix e has a phonological variant a, and these two alternant elements are exclusively selected depending on the final vowel in the preceding vowel stem. The function of e/a is to link verbs and form composite verb constructions. I also include all variants of e kaciko, such as e kacikwu, e kacko, and e kackwu, which could be found in the database. For the sake of convenience, in this paper I take e kaciko as a citation form 45 In (18a), (18b), and (18c), the verb kaci is clearly used as a lexical item and combines with other connectives without restriction while still retaining the meaning of ‘to take’ or ‘to possess.’ The time and condition referring connective myen (‘if; when’) is attached to kaci in (18a), the causal connective ese (‘because; since’) occurs with kaci in (18b), and in (18c) the concessive connective eto (‘even though; yet’) is used with kaci. However, the use of kaci below is different from that used in (18a~c). (19) a. Sikan-ul kaciko chanchanhi sayngkakhay-la Time-ACC KACIKO thoroughly think-IMP:CP ‘Take time and think (about it) thoroughly.’ b. Cayk-ul kaciko wa-la Book-ACC KACIKO come-IMP:CP (lit. ‘Take a book and come,’ or ‘Come with a book.’) ‘Bring a book.’ c. Sap kaciko ttang-ul pha-ss-ni? Shovel KACIKO ground-ACC dig-PAST-CPINTR ‘Did you dig up the ground with a shovel?’ d. Yenge kyoyuk kaciko han sikan tongan yaykihay-ss-ta 9 English education KACIKO one hour during talk-PAST-WE (lit. ‘On the topic of English education that we’ve been talking about for an hour.’) ‘We’ve been talking about English education for an hour.’ The verb kaci is combined with the sequential connective ko (‘and; and then’) in (19a-d). Of these, kaci in (19a) shows the same usage as the other examples in (18a-c), yet it is connected to the connective ko. In utterance (19a), the full meaning of kaci remains as does the connective ko. 9 Unlike the construction e kaciko, the particle use of kaciko is not confined to spoken discourse. 46 However, in (19b-d) the usage is somewhat different. The instances of kaciko in (19b-d) seem to denote a more or less grammatical meaning. Kaciko in (19b) may have two different interpretations: either a) ‘take’ a book ‘and then’ come, or b) come ‘with’ a book. However, kaciko in (19c) and (19d) do not allow such alternatives. More specifically, they function to express ‘with,’ ‘by means of,’ and ‘by,’ instead of the lexical meaning that is ‘to take’ or ‘to possess’ and the connective meaning ‘and then.’ Hopper (1991:22), one of the most influential works in the field of grammaticalization, proposes five principles of grammaticalization (from Brinton 2008:51): (a) Layering: new layers of grammaticalized forms are continually arising and coexist with older layers (b) Divergence: when items are grammaticalized, the original lexical forms may continue to exist (c) Persistence: some traces of the original lexical meanings persist in the grammaticalized forms (d) Specialization: within a functional domain, the variety of choices decreases as items become grammaticalized (e) Decategorialization: items undergoing grammaticalization “tend to lose or neutralize the morphological markers and syntactic privileges characteristic of the full categories Noun and Verb, and to assume attributes characteristic of secondary categories such as Adjective, Particle, Preposition, etc.” As shown in (19c) and (19d), the construction kaciko satisfies all the above principles except for (d). First, speaking of (a) layering, the grammaticalized kaciko expressing ‘by means of,’ etc., coexists with older layers, such as the instrumental particles ulo. Second, the original lexical form, meaning ‘to possess,’ exists as shown in (18) above. Third, the original lexical meaning of ‘to 47 have; to possess’ remains in the grammaticalized kaciko when it is used as an instrumental particle meaning ‘with; by having~.’ However, the fourth principle (d) ‘specialization’ cannot be discussed in this dissertation since it is not diachronic research. Lastly, kaciko satisfies the principles of (e) ‘decategorialization’ in that the verb kaci in kaciko loses its status as a main verb and acquires particle status. In addition, grammaticalization of kaciko can be further evidenced by Lehmann’s (1982) parameters of grammaticalization. That is, kaciko loses its semantic features by ‘bleaching’ (“attrition”). In addition, the verb kaci requires the co-occurrence of the connective ko and together they comprise a grammaticalized unit (“obligatorification”). Moreover, when kaciko is used with a certain set of predicates such as nolta ‘to play,’ nollita, ‘to make fun of,’ etc., kaciko comes to occupy a fixed slot. In these cases, kaciko cannot be replaced by other particles. (See example (21) in this chapter.) To sum up, the differentiated uses of kaciko can be figured as below: Figure 1. Lexical and functional properties of kaciko (19a) (19b) (19c) and (19d) Figure 1 reveals that kaciko can be used to perform three different functions: (a) a lexical use as in (19a), which indicates ‘to possess’; (b) an in-between use as in (19b), which retains both lexical and functional meanings; and (c) an instrumental particle-like use as in (19c and 19d), which is equivalent to ‘by means of,’ ‘with,’ etc., in English. We may conclude that: (a) kaci is always combined with the connective ko without exception when it also carries a grammatical meaning, (b) the content word kaciko and the function word kaciko are concurrently used in Lexical Use Lexical + Grammatial Use Grammatical Use 48 modern Korean, and (c) kaciko is currently in a process whereby the fixed form of kaciko loses its original semantic feature. In other words, the grammaticalization of kaciko is not yet complete, but rather still in progress. 3.4 Grammaticalization The term grammaticalization was coined by Meillet (1912), and since then grammaticalization has drawn much attention in linguistics. As was largely agreed upon by many researchers, grammaticalization is usually defined as the linguistic change whereby a lexical item acquires grammatical characteristics and thus becomes a grammatical item, or a grammatical item becomes further grammaticalized, changing its distribution and function in the process (Meillet 1912; Lehmann 1982; Heine and Reh 1984; Heine, Claudi and Hünnemeyer 1991; Hopper and Traugott 1993; Bybee 2008). To this end, studies on grammaticalization mainly concern diachronic investigations, delving into the sources of grammatical forms and tracing their steps of change. Grammaticalization is a process leading from lexemes to grammatical formatives. A number of semantic syntactic and phonological processes interact in the grammaticalization of morphemes and of whole constructions (Lehmann 1982: vii). Grammaticization (or grammaticalization) is the creation of a new grammatical morpheme and a new construction out of a particular instance of an old construction (Heine et al. 1991; Hopper and Traugott 1993; Bybee et al. 1994). As shown above, the linguistic item that undergoes the process of grammaticalization is not confined to a single word or morpheme. That is, a whole construction can also be 49 grammaticalized, and the newly created form can be derived from an old construction. This is further supported by the instances of kaciko and e kaciko for which we account in this dissertation. As described above, kaciko consists of the verb stem kaci and the sequential connective ko and the suffix e, which functions to link the construction e kaciko to the preceding verb stem and forms a composite construction. More interestingly, the connective ko productively participates in constructing some particles by attaching to the verb stems. See the following examples: (20) a. Ha+ko Con-hako ceyni-nun mikwuk salam-i-eyyo John-HAKO Jenny-NOM American COP-CDE ‘John and Jenny are American.’ Cey yetongsayng-un ce-hako sengkyek-i talla-yo My younger sister-NOM I-HAKO personality-NOM different-CDE ‘My younger sister has a different personality from mine.’ b. Bo+ko Minswu-ka na-poko nayil ilccik hakkyo-ey o-l swu iss-nyako Minsu-NOM I-POKO tomorrow early school-LOC come-can-QUOT Mwulepwa-ss-eyo Ask-PAST-CDE ‘Minsu asked me if I could come to school early tomorrow.’ All examples of (20) contain the connective ko. In (20a) ko is attached to the verb stem of hata ‘to do,’ resulting in the form hako. Different from hako meaning ‘to do ~ and then,’ here hako functions as a linking particle ‘and’ or an accusative/ablative particle ‘with/from.’ In a similar sense, in (20b) ko comprises a dative particle poko by attaching to the verb stem of pota ‘to see,’ meaning ‘to (someone).’ The particle use of poko differs from the use of poko meaning ‘to see 50 and then.’ Similar to kaciko, hako and poko are also formed from the combination of the verb stem and the connective ko. The original lexical meanings of the verb stems have faded, and therein ko is involved in transforming the lexical items into grammatical items. In the same vein, the connective ko has played a part in the construction kaciko and e kaciko and their linguistic transformations. With regard to kaciko, as we examined above, the grammaticalized kaciko differs from the original lexical kaciko, meaning ‘to have ~ and then.’ Since the 1970s some studies have attempted to view ‘grammar’ and grammaticalization in the context of discourse and interaction. It is proposed that grammatical change may also arise synchronically given the degree to which humans require communication and the fact that such communication requires the use of common discourse patterns (Li 1975, 1977; Givón 1979; Hopper and Thompson 1980, 1984). In this regard, Hopper and Traugott (2000) argue that grammaticalization becomes a framework for the interplay of language structures and use based on the assumption that language use is understood as a cognitive and communicative behavior. This suggests that grammaticalization has not only a syntactic but also a pragmatic nature. More importantly, such pragmatic factors may be not only the results of grammaticalization, but also the motivations behind it. It has also been stated that lexical items or constructions come to serve as grammatical items or constructions in ‘certain linguistic contexts’ (e.g., Heine and Traugott 1991; Hopper and Traugott 1993; Brinton and Traugott 2005). This suggests that language users (in)tend to use a particular expression in certain contexts, and as time goes by such usage tendencies and their frequencies in discourse gradually accumulate, resulting in the creation of newly constructed linguistic forms along with new functions and/or meanings. Thereon, it has been pointed out that in grammaticalization, frequency is an important factor contributing to the grammaticalization process, in which concurrence is related to functional shifts (e.g., Bybee and Hopper 2002; Onodera 2004); and furthermore, the frequency of use affects the process of grammar formation (Haiman 1994; Boyland 1996). Bybee (2008) states that frequency is an active force that 51 primarily contributes to the process of changes occurring in grammaticalization, and that it also functions as a major factor in the creation of grammar. Based on previous discussions of grammaticalization in the literature, I take into account the important fact that grammaticalization is rooted in language change, and thus users of the language and the contexts in which the language is actually used cannot be excluded when investigating grammaticalization. In addition, as we have seen thus far, grammaticalization is studied from the point of view of patterns of language use. Thereon, we can see that kaciko is indeed grammaticalized as it represents certain patterns of use. Previously, we examined the use of kaciko in how it is deployed to function as an instrumental particle. This particle-use of kaciko appears to be used in certain linguistic contexts concerning the co-occurrence of predicates. See the examples below. (21) a. Umsik kaciko cangnanchi-ci mal-ala Food KACIKO play with-NEG-IMP:CP ‘Do not play with the food.’ b. Nongtam-ulo hay-pon mal kaciko thucip-i-ya Joke-INST do-try to speech KACIKO cavil-COP-CP ‘You cavil at what I just said it for fun.’ c. Chinkwu-tul-i nay ilum-ul kaciko nollye-ss-e Friend-PLR-NOM my name-ACC KACIKO make fun of-PAST-CP ‘My friends used to make fun of my name.’ d. Ku pwulssanghan ay-lul kuman kacko nol-ala The poor kid-ACC no more KACIKO play-IMP:CP ‘Stop playing the fool with the poor kid.’ 52 Kaciko in these cases cannot be replaced by any other particles that indicate ‘a means of,’ or a tool, etc. In the sentences of (21), kaciko is used as a particle and is collocated with the predicates, such as cangnanchita ‘to play with,’ thucipita ‘to cavil at,’ nollita ‘to make fun of,’ and nolta ‘to play with,’ which all have negative connotations. This suggests that the grammaticalized kaciko tends to be used with predicates having negative connotations, thus creating negative contexts. More importantly, the content and its given context of what is repeated are less likely to be chosen arbitrarily. According to Bybee (2008), this can be explained by human beings’ cognitive processes and their intention to conduct communication. In addition, these examples provide evidence that the concurrence of kaciko and a series of predicates having a negative connotation have a link with the use of e kaciko with respect to its appearance in negative contexts in which e kaciko is used as both a connective and a SCE. In other words, as pointed out in earlier studies (e.g., Bybee, 2003a), the fact that language use is lexically or contextually particular suggests that this tendency is expected to emerge or to develop with new functions and meanings in other discourses involving e kaciko. One additional thing to note is that among these instances, the expression of kaciko nolta in (21d) is more idiomaticized than others in (21a~c) and accessed as a unit. (22) Ay-ka cangnankam-ul kacko nol-ko iss-eyo Kid-NOM toy-ACC KACIKO play-PROG-CDE ‘The kid is playing with a toy.’ Interestingly, both (21d) and (22) contain the identical predicate nolta ‘to play’ that collocates with kaciko. However, kaciko nolta in (22) does not have a negative connotation, whereas the same expression explicitly indicates the meaning of ‘to play the fool with.’ We may draw a supposition that the idiomatic meaning of (21d) is derived from (22). Idiomatization is known to be involved in semantic change from locutionary to figurative or metaphorical meanings (e.g., 53 Brinton, 2008:69). Cole (1975:276) indicates that idiomatic meanings arise while the linguistic item takes a step toward pragmatic strengthening. To sum up, the grammaticalized kaciko synchronically coexists with the lexical use of kaciko in present day Korean discourse. Meanwhile, the grammaticalized kaciko which arises within negative contexts becomes further and further grammaticalized by taking a functional shift to not only a connective but also a SCE. This will be examined and discussed in greater detail in Chapters 4 and 6. Now, we will discuss how the grammaticalization of kaciko and its evolved construction e kaciko achieve their pragmatic meanings. 3.5 Pragmaticalization Givón (1971:413) states, “Today’s morphology is yesterday’s syntax,” meaning that language is always changing, and, moreover, that such change is motivated by language use and that it constructs the forms of grammar that we use. In addition, functions of language will often shift into other categories, just as the construction e kaciko does. Therefore, the language use of e kaciko in present-day Korean discourse carries multi-fold functions and meanings, which can be explained by studies of grammaticalization. More essentially, kaciko and its derived construction e kaciko show important features of grammaticalization. We hereby attempt to establish the characterization of the constructions kaciko and e kaciko in terms of how they are organized synchronically based on the discussion thus far. Figure 2 presents a summary of the interrelated paths of kaciko and e kaciko. Figure 2. Interrelated paths of kaciko and e kaciko Verb kaci Instrumental particle kaciko Connective e kaciko SCE e kaciko 54 Figure 2 illustrates the verb kaci passing through the process of grammaticalization and becoming part of the construction e kaciko, which functions as an instrumental particle and a SCE as well as a connective. In particular, the verb kaci and the connective ko are syntactically combined, and the form kaciko becomes one unit. This fixed form kaciko is in the process of ‘losing its semantic meaning’ (‘to possess’) and of ‘gaining its grammatical meaning’ (‘by means of,’ etc.). According to previous studies on grammaticalization, both syntactic change and semantic bleaching accompany pragmatic enrichment. Traugott (1989, 2012) and Hopper and Traugott (1993) revealed that ‘pragmatic strengthening’ (‘context-induced reinterpretation,’ Heine, Claudi and Hünnemeyer, 1991a, 1991b) is a concomitant feature of grammaticalization. As a construction is repeatedly used, its semantic meaning gradually becomes associated with the ‘pragmatic of intention’ by employing it in certain contexts. In other words, by having undergone the process of grammaticalization, linguistic items or constructions appear to acquire pragmatic meanings in relation to the nature of the contexts in which they are frequently used. Some scholars have discussed this process of pragmaticalization in detail. The process is charted as follows: Figure 3. Process of pragmaticalization Conversational implicature arising in context  Semanticized (Traugott, 1995b) or Lexicalized (Cole, 1975: 273)  Conventional implicature In the process of grammaticalization, the change from conversational implicature to conventional implication has been discussed, along with semantic change (Traugott 1988, 1989; Traugott and König 1991; Hopper and Traugott 1993). As shown in Figure 3.3, through continued use language gradually acquires changed meanings within its given contexts, and those meanings 55 then come to be associated with those particular contexts. As Heine (2002) notes in his account of the semantic changes involved in the process of grammaticalization, the particular linguistic element has accomplished the process of giving “rise to an inference in favor of a new meaning (Heine 2002:86)” and that the “new meaning no longer needs to be supported by the context that gave rise to it (Ibid.: 86).” When the meaning eventually gets to be conventionalized, the language use conveying the newly acquired meaning may then appear in new contexts without any context-induced aids. This type of change has been referred to as “pragmatic strengthening” or “strengthening of informativeness” (Traugott, 1988, 1989) and “context-induced reinterpretation” (Heine, Claudi & Hünnemeyer, 1991a, 1991b). Based on these prior studies, in the subsequent chapters we will delve into finding clues to understanding why e kaciko tends to denote different meanings beyond its semantic meanings. As we discussed earlier, kaciko is in the process of gaining a new meaning that is different from its original semantic meaning (to possess). Furthermore, because kaciko is part of the construction e kaciko, it is expected to carry certain strengthened communicative meanings while functioning as a SCE as well as a connective across various contexts during interaction with the interlocutor. Traugott and König (1991:197) explicate an example of such a semantic shift accompanying the development of pragmatic meaning in the case of the Old English temporal connective ‘pa hwile pe; that time that’ which developed into ‘hwile; while’; important here is the fact that the modern English ‘while’ conveys the speaker’s surprise. Thus, the meaning shift is such that the semantic change developed into the acquiring of a pragmatic meaning that includes meanings of subjectivity and intersubjectivity. Therefore, subjectification and intersubjectification take place in the process of grammaticalization and pragmaticalization, comprising the multifold nature of the linguistic item. The speaker’s intended meaning, i.e., the pragmatic meaning, is viewed in accordance with the mechanism by which: 56 Meanings are recruited by the speaker to encode and regulate attitudes and beliefs (subjectification), and, once subjectified, may be recruited to encode meanings centered on the addressee (intersubjectification) ( Traugott and Dasher 2002: 225). As mentioned above, subjectivity and intersubjectivity have been rather widely discussed in the context of grammaticalization by virtue of Traugott’s influential work (e.g., Traugott 1982, 1990, 1995, 2003) and their respective definitions in other studies show a general consensus with those of Traugott. It should be noted that both subjectification and intersubjectification play a part in the analysis of pragmatic meanings, the extent of which is determined by the particular context of the speaker-hearer negotiation of meaning. In particular, the role of intersubjectivity in conversational interaction is to make reference to norms and expectations. Therefore, it is expected that intersubjectivity will emerge when participants communicate and construct discourse based on strands of schemata such as shared background knowledge or sociocultural norms. In a similar vein, Schiffrin (1990) suggests that intersubjectivity is interactively constructed among participants, while Traugott (2003:128) specifies intersubjectivity in a social sense in terms of the speaker’s ‘face’ or ‘image.’ Intersubjectivity is a general characteristic of all language use, and intersubjective speech situations provide the crucial context for invited inference (Schiffrin 1990; Nuyts 2001). Given the distributional fact that e kaciko exclusively appears in spoken discourse, we can expect to see e kaciko deployed with the aim to perform speech acts that signal the speaker’s attitude toward what is being said or the addressee in interaction. Moreover, in Korean discourse interpersonal relationships are explicitly specified in language use. In this regard, Yule (2011:59) claims that while some interpersonal factors are straightforward, others are often context/situation-dependent. Therefore, I will account for the distribution of the construction e kaciko whereby it denotes subjective and/or intersubjective shades of meaning, along with other linguistic or paralinguistic elements; moreover, I will identify the contexts and manners in which they emerge, as well as the 57 pragmatic meanings that arise in the context of the speaker-hearer negotiation of meaning. I will also look for evidence of the subjectification of e kaciko based on the contexts in which it appears, by relating its use to the particular sociocultural contexts of Korean language use. 3.6 Summary In this chapter, I reviewed previous accounts of the construction kaciko and e kaciko in the Korean linguistics literature. Previous studies have mostly focused on discussing the fact that kaciko underwent the process of grammaticalization and revealing the semantic meaning of the connective e kaciko, with some studies comparing e kaciko with other sequential and causal connectives. The previous studies on the grammatical construction e kaciko appeared to leave many open issues for future investigation. In this regard, I described how the construction e+kaci+ko has grammaticalized from the instrumental particle kaciko involving the verb kaci ‘to have’ into the connective e kaciko as well as the SCE e kaciko. For the present study, grammaticalization is mainly seen from the perspective of discourse pragmatic phenomenon, rather than from a diachronic investigation that looks into the sources of grammatical forms and traces their stages of change. I investigated the grammaticalization path of kaciko and e kaciko, revealing the extent to which grammaticalization intersects with subjectification and intersubjectification. Therefore, in this chapter I reviewed how language change involves meaning change or creation with respect to the construction e kaciko. Drawing on the previous research and still unaddressed issues described above, I will further elucidate under-described usages of e kaciko and reveal the pragmatic nature of e kaciko in Korean discourse. Because the essential feature of the construction e kaciko is that it exclusively appears in spoken discourse, I will employ a corpus-based study to investigate the various uses of the pragmatic construction e kaciko mainly in actual person-to-person interactions. By examining how and where e kaciko is deployed in discourse, we will be able to 58 establish the characteristics of the construction e kaciko in terms of its multi-fold functions and meanings. In particular, we will focus on the pragmatic meanings arising in the context of speaker-hearer negotiation of meaning through the use of e kaciko. We will also account for the distribution of the construction e kaciko whereby it denotes subjective and/or intersubjective shades of meaning in accordance with its various pragmatic functions that carry the speaker’s attitude toward the content or the addressee. In the next chapter, I shall first conduct a thorough investigation of e kaciko in discourses in which it appears as a connective with a wide variety of applications. 59 CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION I: ANALYZING DISCOURSE IN WHICH E KACIKO APPEARS AS A CONNECTIVE 4.1 Introduction In the previous chapter, I discussed how the construction e kaciko has come to have multifold meanings along with multifold functions as it has undergone the process of grammaticalization. As noted earlier, e kaciko is generally regarded as a substitute for other connectives. Moreover, the research findings in erstwhile studies on e kaciko are confined to the connective use of e kaciko, and the discussions thereof are devoted to revealing only two semantic relations that e kaciko indicates: a) sequential and b) causal. However, analyzing the widened corpus data results in the discovery of additional contexts in which e kaciko plays pragmatic roles that are certainly distinctive from others. These more elaborate contexts that have been heretofore overlooked will shed light on revealing the additional distinctive pragmatic roles of e kaciko. Thereby, long-standing semantic issues will be tackled with respect to e kaciko and other connectives. For example, our investigation will provide an answer to the question of why utterances which include e kaciko do not always have English translations that are easy to determine, while the other connectives usually can simply be construed as because, or and then, and so forth. In this chapter, various aspects of discourse where the connective e kaciko appears e kaciko in sequential, causal, adversative, and conditional contexts will be examined. Since pragmatic meanings are created throughout discourse, we will examine co-texts in which e kaciko is deployed and the surrounding contextual factors in addition to the utterance in which e kaciko 60 is deployed. Furthermore, we will elucidate what types of speech acts are performed by e kaciko along with the contexts in which they appear. Therefore, based on the interpersonal relationships between participants, we also need to take into account the following factors: How do the participants interact? How is e kaciko used to establish interaction? What is the speaker’s stance toward the addressee and ‘what is said’? In what ways does the interlocutor correspondingly decode the speaker’s intention afterwards? To examine discourses in which e kaciko is processed, I will examine various kinds of discourses that will reveal a variety of pragmatic meanings of e kaciko, including everyday talk, TV news, political debates, and talk radio broadcasts, along with considering the various topics that these discourses cover. I shall first investigate the distribution of e kaciko across different text types in the Sejong Corpus: Present Day Korean. 4.2 Distribution of e kaciko in the corpus According to the corpus data, the frequency of e kaciko in formal contexts is much lower than that in relatively informal contexts. Therefore, in this section I compare two spoken discourses of different contexts from the Sejong Corpus: Present Day Spoken Korean to examine the overall use of e kaciko in each context. Given that e kaciko widely functions to indicate various relations between the preceding and succeeding clauses, including causal, sequential, adversative, and conditional, here ‘topic’ is not considered as a variant. 4.2.1 Formality and the distribution of e kaciko across discourse In Korean discourse, a higher degree of formality emerges from publicly constructed discourses such as mass-media broadcasts, newscasts, public speeches, and lectures, etc. Although newspaper articles are also types of formal discourse, they are mostly excluded from 61 the current analysis due to the fact that e kaciko exclusively appears in spoken discourse except for cases of direct quotations and other spoken uses. In addition, the predominant use of endings, such as the deferential formal ending supnita 10 , is considered a salient indicator of formal discourse. The following table shows how e kaciko is distributed over different text types. Table 1. Distribution of the overall use of e kaciko in different text types in spoken discourse from the Sejong Corpus (Frequencies are normalized to per 10,000 words.) Text type Discourse Type Frequencies Normalized frequencies Number of words Formal Classroom presentations (Sejong Corpus 6CM0043 and Sejong Corpus 6CM00043) 23 29.88 7698 Informal Everyday conversation (Sejong Corpus 4CM00034) 112 75.35 14865 As presented in Table 1, e kaciko is approximately 2.5 times more frequent in informal contexts than formal contexts. Although both the formal and informal contexts in these cases were constructed by college students, they choose to use e kaciko in each context in a strikingly different manner. That is, e kaciko is very frequent in everyday conversation, when participants are in informal situations characterized by intimacy and close interpersonal relationships. In stark contrast, the corpus data from college students’ class presentations suggests that the speakers tend to purposefully restrict the use of e kaciko in formal contexts. Moreover, in formally constructed discourse, e kaciko is distributed within very particular contexts. 10 In formal Korean discourse, participants mostly use formal-deferential types of endings, but sometimes they also use informal-deferential endings. 62 Drawing on these results, to further examine the interrelations between the use of e kaciko and the formality of context, 55 articles in the corpus data from Korean TV newscast correspondence were examined; the articles were collected from TV news articles covering various topics such as politics, economics, culture, and lifestyle, etc. 11 Results showed that among the utterances made by news anchors, e kaciko was used only one time; moreover, this instance occurred when the anchor was interviewing an invited guest regarding a political issue. Thus, we may conclude that e kaciko is infrequently used in formal contexts. In addition to the matter of formality, we may also make another claim. Given that both classroom presentations and anchors’ utterances from TV newscasts are scripted beforehand, thus making it unlikely that the discourses were improvised or created extemporaneously, we can claim that scripted formal discourse rarely allows the employment of e kaciko. To verify this claim, two sportscasters’ utterances were examined; sportscaster utterances are formal but generally more impromptu and interactive compared to TV newscast utterances or classroom presentations. E kaciko was found 27 times out of 13,559 words among the discourse between two sportscasters describing and commenting on a soccer game. If we simply compare the normalized frequencies of the ‘presentation’ data (29.88) and the ‘sports commentary’ data (19.91), the difference may appear to be insignificant. However, a closer analysis of the contexts in which e kaciko appears reveals quantitative differences between the extemporaneous commentaries and scripted speeches. 4.3 Deformalizing the tone of discourse Although e kaciko is not frequently used in informal contexts, corpus data yields substantial results as to its distinctive usage patterns in formal contexts. The following discourse 11 The TV news stories were aired on February 17, 2015. 63 is excerpted from a college student’s presentation during an actual class. See how and where e kaciko is used across the presentation. (23) a. Ilen etten silyongcekin imici-lul thonghay kackwu (: :) i--- yutho-lanun ssepissu-lul Like this some practical image-ACC through-E KACIKIO this Youto-QUOTsevice-ACC Iyonghay-ss-ul ttay, etten epmwu nunglyek-uy hyangsang ilatunci kulen icey Use-PAST-when some work ability-GEN improvement such as like that now pota hwakcangtoyn yengyek-uy hwakcangu-lo ie --- ieci-l swu iss-tanun kes-ul more expand territory- GEN expansion-DIR link linked-can-NOMZ-ACC poyecwu-ko iss-supnita show-PROG-FDE ‘Through some practical image like this, (this example) suggests that using the service called Youto can be lin…linked to…some sort of wider domain, such as the improvement of job performance. Sejong Corpus 6CM00044 b. Tto po-myenun koyngcanghi kamsengcekin pwunwiki na icey kamsengcekin thon(.) Again see CONN very emotional atmosphere or now emotional tone kulen key sayongha- mulo inhay kacko (: :) tto ilehan cakuki, palo tto like that thing use NOMZ due to-E KACIKO again like this stimulation right again yeseng-tul-eykey te chinkunhakey takaka-l swu issnun, kulehan icey (: :) female-PLR-DAT more friendly approach-can such now panung-ey coken-i nathana-key toy-ess-supnita response-DIR condition-NOM appear-become-PAST-FDE ‘….and, if we see (here), because of utilizing a very emotional atmosphere or emotional tone, something like that… and this sort of stimulation is… well.. that kind of… the conditions appear toward the response that enables a friendly approach to females. 64 Sejong Corpus 6CM00044 Overall, throughout the entire discourses from which these two examples in (23) are excerpted, the presenters control their use of the sentential endings to the ‘supnita type’ deferential-formal ending form. As shown in (23), e kaciko is attached to the verb stem of tongha ‘to go through’ and inha ‘to be caused by.’ In fact, these are fixed composite constructions that are used as in ul tonghay and ulo inhay and are akin to the prepositions ‘through’ and ‘because of,’ respectively. Such being the case, the employment of e kaciko appears redundant after them. Throughout the whole discourse, however, e kaciko is used 30 times during a total speech production of 4036 words. Furthermore, the use of e kaciko appears to be concentrated in a particular context. That is, out of 30 examples of e kaciko, 25 examples (83.33%), including the two examples cited above, reveal a consistent pattern. In the same vein, an analysis of the Sejong Corpus and language use on the Internet reveals that e kaciko often co-occurs with some composite constructions. They are shown in Table 2 below. Table 2. Co-occurrence of composite expressions and e kaciko Default expression With e kaciko Meaning ~ey ttala ~ey ttala kaciko according to ~lul thonghay ~lul thonghay kaciko Through ~ey tayhay ~ey tayhay kaciko About ~lul wihay ~lul wihay kaciko for (the sake of) ~lo inhay ~lo inhay kaciko 12 because of Some speakers use e kaciko after these strands of formulaic expressions within formal contexts. We might sense that the use of e kaciko here makes a contribution to the interactional level of 12 Note that we will discuss the use of e kaciko after ‘ulo inha+y kaciko’ in other contexts, which conveys the speaker’s certain intention, in section 4.5.1. 65 discourse, inviting a colloquial voice into the formal discourse. Therefore, the seemingly redundant use of e kaciko actually functions to lower the formality level. It is a noteworthy fact that the emergence of e kaciko in the discourse examples of (23) do not seem to be voluntary usages that reflect the presenters’ intention. Instead, it is more likely the case that e kaciko spontaneously appeared where the discourses turned desultory. In fact, this is well proven by (23a) and (23b). In (23a), the speaker displays some pauses and hedge markers such as icey ‘now’ and etten ‘some’ which do not contribute to the lexical meanings of the utterances; rather they function as fillers, and, moreover, the speaker also stutters. In fact, the presenter of (23b) has more jumbles of words, pauses, and hedge markers of icey ‘now’ and tto ‘again.’ In both (23a) and (23b), the use of e kaciko is originally unintended, and the speaker’s less formal voice seems to make an abrupt appearance by e kaciko while talking. However, it certainly results in contributing to the colloquial aspect of formal spoken discourse settings. Speaking of formal discourses, the results from the formal types of corpus data also suggest that e kaciko is used when the speaker explains sequential relations or explicates a process in a time manner. See how e kaciko is deployed in the following discourse examples. (24) a. ((A professor is giving a keynote speech at an academic conference)) Hangsang nukki-nun ke-cimanun wuli-ka--- etten (: :) pwunya-eyse, hyentay sahoy Always feel-NOMZ-CONN we-NOM any field-LOC modern society Eyes-nun etten pwunya (: :) tunkaney, ey--- ku pwunya-ey tayhan cengpo-lul LOC-TOP any field no matter INTJ the field about information-ACC ilehkey swuciphay kaciko cenglihay kaciko son-ey cwi-ko iss-nun ke (: :) like this collect-E KACIKO organize-E KACIKO hand-LOC grab-RSL-NOMZ I-ke-pota te khun-caysan-i cikum eps-nun kes kath-supnita. This-thing-than more big-asset-NOM Now not exist-seem-FDE 66 ‘This is what I have been thinking all the time, but we… regardless of the field (of study) in modern society, well…according to the field (of study), there won’t be a bigger asset than having information like… in hand by collecting and organizing it, I suppose.’ Sejong Corpus 6CM00003 b. ((Two sportscasters are describing and commenting on a soccer game)) A1:A--- cenpancen-ey-nun kin phaysu-ka pyello an nawa-ssess-nuntey INTJ first half-TEMP-TOP long pass-NOM not much NEG appear-PAST-CONN hwupancen tulewa-kaciko icey kongkan-ey pwuthy-e noh-ko ku kyenghap-ul second half enter-E KACIKO now space-LOC attach-RSL-CONN the competition-ACC ha-ko ttelecinun ppol-ul tasi cw-se-meknun (…) do-CONN fall ball-ACC again collect- CONN-eat ‘Well, in the first half not many long passes were made, but since the second half began, now the players are competing for the falling ball after long passes … B1: Ney. Yes: CD ‘That’s Right.’ A2: A--- kulen kongkyek-uy pyenhwa-lul sitoha-ko iss-neyyo. INTJ like that attack-GEN change-ACC try to-PROG-CDE ‘Well, players are attempting to make changes in how they attack.’ Sejong Corpus 7CM0006 Overall, throughout the entire discourse above, including excerpt (24a), the speaker predominantly uses the deferential-formal style of SCEs, whereas the sportscasters of (24b) show the combined use of the deferential-formal and the deferential-casual styles of endings, such as yo. In (24a) the speaker uses e kaciko while emphasizing the importance of constructing data collection in any field of study. He briefly explains the process of constructing data collection 67 efforts by using e kaciko to express the sequential relation ‘and then.’ E kaciko in (24b) also appears where the sportscaster indicates the time sequence by saying ‘since the second half began’ in the opening-line. Despite the fact that all these utterances are constructed in formal contexts, they are presumably considered to be more extemporaneous in nature than news broadcasts and the like which rely on scripted utterances. Ergo, we might conclude that the occurrence of e kaciko contributes a colloquial and impromptu voice to formal speech, as discussed earlier in (23). Concurrently, the segments of discourses in which e kaciko emerges are comparable with the rest of the discourse data because they can be seen as relatively desultory given that formal speeches are mostly premeditated to some degree. As indicated in (24a) and (24b), during the discourse the speakers commonly employed hedge markers such as etten ‘some’ and cigum ‘now’ that are not part of the propositional content in (24a), and they also filled in their speech with pauses and interjections such as a ‘uhh’ and ku in (24b) in the adjacent co-texts in which e kaciko is deployed. Despite the fact that e kaciko is limitedly distributed in formal discourse, the findings we have discussed thus far suggest that e kaciko is used when the speaker’s spontaneous tone emerges. Hence, it is anticipated that e kaciko is more frequent in extemporaneous contexts such as everyday conversation. In the subsequent sections, therefore, we will examine Korean speakers’ practice of using e kaciko in discourse when expressing their tone or attitude beyond the semantic functions of e kaciko. We will analyze the collected discourse data in accordance with these different functions. In particular, we will focus on how e kaciko has acquired interactive functions in present-day Korean across multiple discourse types, taking into account the fact that e kaciko has been undergoing the process of grammaticalization. 68 4.4 Using e kaciko in sequential contexts In the previous section, we discussed how in formal contexts e kaciko is used to indicate sequential relations with the consequence of lowering the level of formality of the discourse. In this regard, the question arises as to how e kaciko functions when it appears in contexts which are already denoting a less formal and more colloquial context. Accordingly, we collected data embedding the use of e kaciko in informal contexts where the interpersonal relationships of the participants tended to be casual. The resulting data comprises two types of contexts. 4.4.1 Comprising composite verb constructions First, the corpus data indicates that e kaciko appears to consist of a number of composite verb constructions. That is, e kaciko causes lexical infusion; it functions as an auxiliary verb while maintaining its original function as a connective. These composite verbs are constructed as follows. (25) Verb 1 – e kaciko – Verb 2 As seen in (25), e kaciko is linked to the preceding verb stem just as other connectives are. However, unlike the normal behavior of connectives, here e kaciko is used between two verbs, and the second verb follows right after e kaciko. Hence, other elements are rarely inserted between e kaciko and Verb 2. More interestingly, as many instances indicate, in the slot of Verb 2 mobile verbs such as ‘to come’ and ‘to go’ are frequently used. By constructing composite verb constructions, they denote three types of functions. (26) a. ‘Verb 1 and then Verb 2’ Twul ta kongpwu yelsimhi hay-se cal hay kaciko sewultay-lul ttak 69 two all study hard do-CONN well do E KACIKO Seoul Nat’l Univ.-ACC just tuleka-kaciko cal tani-ko, ce honca-man tto talun tey ka-se enter-E KACIKO well attend-CONN I alone-only in addition different place go-CONN tani-nikka, tto twul-man chinha-tulakwu-yo attend-CONN again two-only intimate-RPT-CDE ‘Those two, they studied hard and well, so they went to Seoul Nat’l University and have been doing well there, while I went to a different university alone, and so the two of them became close.’ Sejong Corpus 5CM00057 b. ‘to Verb2 with Verb1-ing’ Kkwulmwul com siwenhakey han can tha kackwu wa Honey water a little bit cool one CL make-E KACIKO come-IMP:CP (Lit. ‘Making a glass of cool honey water and come (here)’) ‘Come by/with making a glass of cool honey water.’ TV Drama, Kwusseyela kumswuna, Episode 16 c. ‘to Verb2 by means of Verb1’ Sangchwu twu cang ilen ke peli-ci ma-si-ko, ilehkey Lettuce two CL like this thing throw away-NEG-HON-CONN like this Ccic-e kacko iyong-ul ha-y po-si-myen ette-nka kulen sayngkak-i tear-E KACIKO use-ACC do-try to-HON-CONN how-INTR like that thought-NOM tto tul-ko (…) in addition have-CONN ‘I also thought, what if we don’t throw away (the leftover ingredients), and try to use them like (for example), by tearing two pieces of lettuce…’ Sejong Corpus 8CK00002 70 As presented above, e kaciko denotes a sequential relation between the two verbs in (26a). Unlike (26a), e kaciko does not necessarily indicate a sequential relation in (26b); instead, e kaciko indicates the resultative state of Verb 1. Lastly, in (26c) the use of e kaciko is akin to the particle use of kaciko that we discussed in section 3.3, which indicates a means to do Verb 1. With respect to all usages of e kaciko as shown in (26), the sequential connective e kaciko participates in composing serial verb constructions just as other auxiliary verbs do, such as e pota ‘to try to,’ although e kaciko has not yet achieved the grammatical label of auxiliary verb. 4.4.2 Expressing the speaker’s personal associations toward the sequential relations The second type of e kaciko usage in sequential contexts is mostly found when the speaker expresses her or his personal associations or attitude toward what she or he is talking about or toward the addressee. We shall examine how e kaciko is involved in expressing the speaker’s attitude toward sequential relations. The following excerpt shows one such example in intimate conversation. (27) ((Two friends, Speakers A and B, are talking about another friend.)) A1: Hyengcwuni, (: :) ecku--- ecekkey kapcaki saypyek-ey Hyungjuni-ka Hyungjun the day before yesterday yesterday suddenly dawn-TEMP Hyungjun-NOM Han si nka yeltwu si ta tway kaciko cenhwa-ka wa-ss-tela 1 CL or 12 CL almost become-E KACIKO call-NOM come-PAST-RPT kulayse, na-nun molla-ss-e. kuntey na-nun hangsang yaykihay-noh-ko so I-NOM do not know-PAST-CPE but I-NOM always talk-RSL-CONN incey kkamek-ko incey sayngkak-un ha-ko iss-ess-nuntey (…) now forget CONN now thought-NOM do-RST-PAST-CONN ‘The day before yesterday… (no) yesterday Hyungjun all of sudden called me at 1 a.m. 71 or almost at 12 a.m. So, I didn’t know… I always told… well… and then forgot, well... I kept thinking about it, but… B1: e Yes:CD ‘Yeah’ A2: Na-n icey (x) yosay keuy cip-eyse iss-umyen mos o-ketun? kuntey I-NOM now these days almost home-LOC stay-CONN NEG come-CPINTR but Hyengcwuni-ka kapcaki incey mwullon phyengsoey cenhwa o-ciman, saypyek-ey Hyungjun-NOM suddenly now of course usually call come CONN dawn-TEMP cenhwa @@ wa kaciko (: :) tanghwanghay kaciko @@ (…) call come-E KACIKO upset-E KACIKO ‘I, well…recently, when I’m home I can’t get out, almost, you know? But, Hyungjun suddenly, well….yeah, of course, we talked on the phone sometimes, (but) he called me at dawn… (laugh) B2: @@ (laugh) Sejong Corpus 4CM00089 In (27) Speaker A is telling Speaker B about their mutual friend named Hyungjun. In the prior co- text, Speaker A informed Speaker B that Speaker A once promised their friend Hyungjun to set him up with a girl, but Speaker A had totally forgotten about it. Meanwhile, Speaker A received a call from Hyungjun yesterday and he was upset by the call because he felt sorry he didn’t keep the promise. When describing what happened last night, Speaker A implies that 12 o’clock is a late time to call someone by using e kaciko: ‘it became about 12 o’clock and then he called me.’ Once again, in (27:A2) he mentions that the late night phone call from the unexpected person upset him. Whereby he explains the incident in terms of sequential relations, he intends to convey 72 his attitude toward what happened. Similar to this excerpt from an ordinary conversation made between friends, many other instances from the corpus data show that the speaker employs e kaciko in sequential contexts. A. E kaciko in ‘trouble talk’ discourses as a social act More importantly, the contexts mostly include conversations that mostly concern ‘troublesome situations.’ Some researchers discuss language use in terms of social acts (Boxer 1993, Drew 1998, Jefferson 1988, Tannen 1990). According to such studies, in everyday conversation ‘trouble talk,’ including complaints toward someone or something absent, functions to contribute a degree of solidarity, intimacy, and friendship, etc., to the interpersonal relations between participants. In addition, in such ‘trouble talk’ discourses, the speaker anticipates that the interlocutor will agree with him/her or at least show empathy for the given situation and the speaker. Therefore, the participants are able to build more intimate and tight relationships, with e kaciko implying the pragmatic meaning that the speaker subtly anticipates. Now we will examine a variety of different discourses in which e kaciko takes on various pragmatic functions that convey the speaker’s stance in more widened contexts, such as causal, adversative, and conditional contexts. 4.5 Using e kaciko in causal contexts In this section we will discuss the pragmatic usages of e kaciko that participate in creating social acts in three distinguished contexts. More specifically, corpus data shows frequent instances of e kaciko in casual contexts where speakers intend to emphasize or mitigate negative consequences and thus anticipate saving her or his, or even the addressee’s face. Therefore, the form of e kaciko that will be examined here tends to be associated with even stronger 73 perlocutionary effects such as ‘accepting apologies,’ ‘requests,’ and so forth. In addition, the causal e kaciko is also used as a way to blame the interlocutor for some wrongdoing, and thus the speaker anticipates such a speech act as ‘making apologies’ from the interlocutor. To discuss this in greater detail, let us analyze discourses and discuss how participants actually interact in terms of encoding and decoding the causal connective e kaciko. 4.5.1 Expressing the speaker’s regret or pity toward a negative consequence Another use of e kaciko can be found in discourse in which cause-and-effect relationships are described. The example below is an excerpt from a pastor’s speech about a casino in Korea. (28) Ce kangwento cengsen-ey khacino-lul mantul-e kacko-yo, That Gangwondo Jeongseon-LOC casino-ACC make-E KACIKO-CDE i topakcang-ul mantul-e kaciko, sinmwun-ey nan ke-l this gambling place-ACC make-E KACIKO newspapers-LOC report thing-ACC po-nikka, han salam-i ka-se paykosipek-ul ilh-ess-e. see-CONN one person-NOM go-CONN 15 billion won-ACC lose-PAST-CPE Kulehkey salam -ul phyeyin-ulo mantunun, kulehan topakcang-ul like that person-ACC crippled person-DIR make like that gambling place-ACC mantul-e noh-a kaciko (.) swumanhun salam-tul-i cikum-to keki-se motun make-RSL-E KACIKO many person-PLR-NOM now-also there-LOC all caysan-ul ilh-ko pam-mata kilkeli-lul panghwangha-ko iss property-ACC lose-CONN night-every street-ACC wander-PROG nunkes-i-pnita. NOMZ-COP-FDE ‘According to the newspapers, since the casino has been operating in Gangwon-do ((a 74 province name)), Jeongseon ((a city name)), one person went to gamble there and lost 15 billion ((won))…because such a gambling place that makes people become depressed and dejected was built, many people have been wandering the streets after losing their money every night.’ Christian Today, January 15, 2011 13 In the utterance above, which consists of only two sentences, the speaker repeatedly uses e kaciko three times. Below I analyze the contexts in which these three instances of e kaciko appear. . (29) a. Khacino-lul mantul-e kaciko Casino-ACC make-E KACIKO b. I topakcang-ul mantul-e kaciko This gambling place-ACC make-E KACIKO c. Topakcang-ul mantul-e noh-a kaciko Gambling place-ACC make-RSL-E KACIKO ‘Because they run the casino…’ Interestingly, as shown in (29a-c), the linguistic contexts of the clauses to which e kaciko attaches are all identical. That is, the speaker frequently employs e kaciko in order to emphasize a negative consequence, as represented in (30) below. 13 This article can be found at http://www.christiantoday.co.kr/view.htm?id=243902. 75 (30) [I resent the fact that] CAUSE - EFFECT Cause Effect Running the casino Many people have become dejected and have been wandering the streets Here, the intention of the speaker is not just to report the facts that include a cause-and-effect relationship, but also to be judgmental and resent the situation. Hence, the utterance signals the speaker’s stance, and e kaciko serves to make an emphatic statement on the negative consequences. It is also noteworthy that the observed negative connotations of e kaciko are also influenced by co-occurring vocabulary that generally connote negative meanings; for instance, the vocabulary ‘casino’ and ‘gambling house’ themselves frequently activate a strand of negative schemata because they are often found referring to negative contexts in Korea. A. E kaciko conveying the speaker’s stance By employing e kaciko instead of other compatible connective, for example ese, the speaker intends to invite the listeners--in this case the audiences of the public speech--to feel empathy for the situation as well as the subjective stance of the speaker. This is the pragmatic role of e kaciko; that is, e kaciko conveys the pragmatic meaning of the speaker’s stance toward the given situation, or the participant responding to the particular context, in addition to the grammatical function. In contrast, ese does not imply the pragmatic meaning, which also indicates the speaker’s stance, shown in the square brackets. 14 Similar to other world languages including English and European languages that have complete clause constructions as a primary source of expressing the speaker’s stance (Biber 14 We will discuss e kaciko in comparison with ese in Chapter 5. 76 2004:111), there are of course corresponding phrases in Korean to express stance to some extent. Compared to such paraphrasal constructions, however, e kaciko engages many levels of social activity, interpersonal factors, and/or cultural expectations, because it is often not immediately obvious- it is subtle because it enables the speaker to not directly mention the pragmatic meaning, but yet still works as an effective speech act tool, as e kaciko has achieved such functions while undergoing the process of grammaticalization and the construction of pragmatic environments as discussed in Section 3.4 and 3.5. 15 B. Distribution of e kaciko in negative contexts In order to further examine whether e kaciko is confined to negative contexts, I investigated other similar occurrences that engage in the semantic relation of cause-effect via Internet search engines. Intriguingly, as a result, in causal contexts a number of utterances are noteworthy in the data that contain the composite construction of ulo inha and e kaciko. 16 This interesting result leads us to consider the fact that the pattern ulo inha itself means due to, which indicates a cause or reason, and thus means that the discourse will be mainly about a topic that focuses on a cause-and-effect relationship. Thus, we can reasonably expect that the use of ulo inha + e kaciko will illustrate the speaker’s intention in causal contexts far more clearly. Ergo we will consider below not only what kind of intention the speaker intends to encode by using e kaciko in discourse, but also whether the discourses in which this construction is used are indeed negative. The following table indicates the distribution of ulo inha + e kaciko in terms of its connotation. 15 This aspect of e kaciko more evidently emerges when it is used as a sentence concluding ending, which is considered to be a further step of grammaticalization. 16 The data set used for this analysis comprises newspaper articles and TV news transcripts (May 15, 2011 - May 15, 2012). These examples can be found at http://news.search.naver.com/search.naver?sm=tab_hty.top&where=news&ie=utf8&query=%22%EC%9D %B8%ED%95%B4+%EA%B0%80%EC%A7%80%EA%B3%A0%22&x=29&y=21. 77 Table 3. [± negative] connotations of e kaciko Ulo inhay + kaciko [+negative] consequences [-negative] consequences N 23 4 % 85.19 14.81 According to Internet search engine data, instances of sentences that include both ulo inha + e kaciko are mostly found in discourses in which the speaker describes negative consequences. See the following two examples, taken from Internet data: (31) a. Cinan oyhwanwiki ihwu-ey icey kyeysokcekulo cokumssik hyengthay-lul Last foreign exchange crisis after-TEMP now continually little by little format-ACC Pakkwu-myense cinhayngtoyeon sincayucwuuycek sicangkayhyek-ulo inhay-kaciko Change-CONN progress neoliberalism market reforms-ULO INHA-E KACIKO kwukmintul saynghwal-i cemcem elyewecy-ess-ketun-yo people life-NOM gradually become hard-PAST-CDE ‘Since the foreign exchange crisis, the lives of the people are becoming more difficult due to the neoliberal market reforms, which have changed format little by little.’ Nocut News, March 21, 2012 17 b. Ecey-pwuthe naylin kangwu-ulo inhay-kaciko yak 4000 thon-uy Yesterday-since raining heavy rain ULO INHA-E KACIKO about 4000 CL-GEN Mwul-i kangchenpo-ey yuiptway-ss-supnita. Nemwu manhun mwul-i Water-NOM river-DIR flow in-PAST-FDE too much water-NOM Naylyewa-kaciko ilpwu yusilitway-ss-supnita. come down-E KACIKO part washed away-PAST-FDE 17 This article can be found at http://www.nocutnews.co.kr/Show.asp?IDX=2092615. 78 ((lit.) Due to the heavy rain since yesterday, approximately 4,000 tons of water has flowed into the river.) ‘Since too much rain fell, some parts of the land were washed away.’ SBS TV News, June 30, 2011 18 As shown above, e kaciko can be used in several different types of discourse, and can cover various topics. Results of my analysis revealed that the speakers in (31) delivered not only the facts but also their intentions behind producing their utterances. Thus, e kaciko conveys the speakers’ feelings or judgments toward the incidents under discussion, such as one’s feeling of regret or pity. Thus far, we discussed that e kaciko is deployed when the speaker intends to resent a given situation or consequence. 4.5.2 Blaming the addressee for a negative consequence Now, we shall examine more intimate contexts whereby e kaciko is involved in addressing the interlocutor, an absent 3 rd party, and the speaker himself or herself. See the following two examples: (32) Cincca, way celay, swul mek-ul ttaymata, salam wuskye kacko Really why do like that alcohol drink-every time person make laugh-E KACIKO swul to mos masi-key ha-ko (.) eu --- cincca isanghay “~ alcohol even NEG drink CAS CONN INTJ really weird ‘…really, why do you do that, every time I drink you make me laugh so I can’t drink, huh, you’re really weird’ 18 This article can be found at http://news.sbs.co.kr/section_news/news_read.jsp?news_id=N1000940356. 79 TV Drama, Goodbye Solo, Eepisode 16 The speaker of the utterance (32) uses e kaciko to express the meaning of ‘You make me laugh, so I can’t drink.’ Here, e kaciko implies the speaker’s attitude toward the addressee. That is, the speaker points out that the addressee’s being weird cause her to not be able to even drink beer; the addressee is acting so ridiculous that she is unable to drink. In (32) the relationship between the speaker and addressee is intimate friends, and the speaker expresses negative feeling against the interlocutor by using e kaciko. In addition, the speaker uses the adverb ‘really’ when initiating her utterance for the discourse purpose of expressing her emotions instead of delivering the lexical meaning of ‘really.’ Throughout the corpus data, including the excerpt of (32), the discourses in which e kaciko is used as a causal connective to indicate the speaker’s attitude toward intimate interlocutors, the utterances tend to be interpreted as complaints. Thereafter, the utterances employing e kaciko are often followed by the interlocutors’ responses that reflect the perlocutionary effect of e kaciko; such as apologizing or explicating/excusing the speaker’s complaints. E kaciko is also found in similar contexts when utterances are directed at an absent 3 rd party. (33) ((While Speaker A and B are talking about studying English by reading newspapers written in English)) A: Kholiathaimci-to makheysthing-ul cicilito mos hay kacikwu ku tokca-ka Korea Times-also marketing-ACC dreadfully NEG do-E KACIKO the reader-NOM han iman-to an toy-ntay-yo. about 20,000-even NEG become-RPT-CDE ‘Because The Korea Times has been very poorly marketed, the subscribers are fewer than 20,000, as I heard’ 80 B: @@ ‘(Laugh)’ Sejong Corpus 4CM00034 As seen in (33) the addressee is absent and the communication participants talk about ‘how The Korea Times is bad at marketing’ results in very low numbers of subscribers. Thereafter the interlocutor, Speaker B, responds by laughing. In addition to the use of e kaciko, the adverb cicilito ‘dreadfully, awfully’ here obviously refers to The Korea Times in a sense of disparagement. Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) discuss that language use reflects relational factors between participants, such as ‘power and distance.’ In particular, relational factors play a significant role when the speaker makes decisions on ‘language choice.’ Evidently, in (33) the speaker’s decision on the language choice of cicilito signals her relation with the addressed 3 rd party that is both physically absent and socially distant. Presumably, the speaker would not choose such vocabulary when actually facing any of the personnel of the addressed company or acquaintances, unless she really meant to act and speak so directly and aggressively in interaction. The production of utterance (33) is also shaped according to the relationship with the interlocutor. The intimate and casual relational factor makes the speaker decide to speak in this particular way while expressing her attitude toward the addressed 3 rd party. A. E kaciko in ‘talking behind the addressee’s back’ discourses as social acts As seen in (33), such uses of e kaciko are often found in the corpus data when it can be interpreted of playing a role in constructing discourses of ‘talking behind the addressee’s back’ or ‘making a mockery of the addressee.’ As is widely discussed in the anthropological literature, teasing and relevant behaviors are often considered as a ‘socializing practice,’ such as ‘comprising friendliness’ (Eder 1990, Eisenberg 1986, Schieffelin 1986, Tholander 2002; re-cited 81 from Geyer, 2008: 98). Adopting this view into our discussion, e kaciko is frequent in discourse in which participants share a disparaging opinion about a 3 rd party without reserve. Hence, the grammatical construction e kaciko plays a role as social actor in conversation by functioning to establish solidarity between the communicative participants. Throughout the corpus data, this pragmatic use of e kaciko was often observed to induce the interlocutor to laugh or verbally makes an agreeable response. Note that in more intimate and casual contexts, negative situations are judged relatively more or less subjectively by the speaker. In other words, we see that e kaciko can also convey the meaning of the speaker’s regret or feelings of pity toward a consequence that is considered negative by the speaker, although it may not normally connote negativity from a more objective viewpoint; thus this interpretation depends on the speaker’s personal judgment and stance. Thus far, in section we have discussed that e kaciko in casual contexts can express the speaker’s resentment toward a given situation, interlocutor, or absent 3 rd party. It is noteworthy that the frequent use of e kaciko in this nature of contexts certainly contributes to e kaciko having such a pragmatic meaning, and furthermore it transmits to the SCE e kaciko while passing through the process of grammaticalization. This pragmatic use of e kaciko allows for more contextual resources that enable speakers to express a number of new stances in the interaction; moreover, the particular usages of stance-expression continue to be explained by taking account of various discourses. 4.5.3 Asking for the interlocutor’s understanding in troublesome situations Across the corpus data, many discourse examples were found in which e kaciko clauses indicated a reason for the succeeding clause. In this case, e kaciko can be translated as ‘because’ in English, but still the semantic meaning of this single word cannot represent the full features of 82 e kaciko. Let us examine the discourses in which e kaciko is deployed and thus what e kaciko implies and how interactions occur beyond its use. 4.5.3.1 Clarifying the speaker’s position The following short interview excerpt displays this use of e kaciko. (34) ((A parent is explaining why her child is not wearing a seatbelt in the backseat)) a. Taptapha-tako manhi ha y kaciko (….) cey-ka cam---kkan tto Uncomfortable-QUOT many do-E KACIKO I-NOM for a short time again Phwulecw-ess-nuntey (….) kule-myen an toy-nun ke al-myenseto Unfasten-PAST-CONN do that-CONN NEG fine- NOMZ know- CONN @@ cakkwu taptapha-tako ha-nikka (…) (laugh) constantly uncomfortable- QUOT-CONN ‘Because my child told me that he was uncomfortable wearing the seatbelt, I unfastened it for a short time… I know I shouldn’t have… he said it was uncomfortable…’ MBC TV News, February 16, 2015 19 b. Cey-ka kachwulha-y kaciko ton-i philyoha y kaciko I-NOM run away from home-E KACIKO money-NOM need-E KACIKO Cha-lul ta yel-epw-ass-nuntey kukey an yelli-l cwul al-ass-nuntey Car-ACC all open-try to-PAST-CONN the thing NEG open-expect to-PAST-CONN kukey yellecye-kaciko… kulay-ss-eyo the thing open-E KACIKO do so PAST CDE 19 This TV news clips can be found at http://imnews.imbc.com/replay/2015/nwtoday/article/3649119_14782.html. This interview is shown between 0:27 and 0:39. 83 ‘Because I need money since I ran away from home, I tried to unlock every car but I didn’t expect any of the cars would be unlocked. Because the car was unlocked I did it’ KBS TV News, February 22, 2012 20 The interviewee who utters (34a) displays embarrassment by her facial expressions, awkward smile, and many pauses in between words so as to show that she is put in an untenable position. E kaciko is used when she gives full particulars of the blameful situation and explicates the reason why she unfastened her child’s seatbelt. By the same token, the speaker of (34b) is put in an adverse situation and describes why/ how he happened to commit a crime at the police investigation. Thereby, as shown in (34a) the use of e kaciko signals that the speaker attempts to mitigate the troublesome situation along with the prosodic expressions, while admitting her wrongdoing, whereas in (34b) the speaker uses the causal connective e kaciko three times in a single sentence. As the two situations in (34) contrastively present, this sort of embarrassing or troublesome situation to some degree happens frequently, and thus we very often happen to be put in a position to express our stance about it. That must be a reliable reason to explicate the frequent distribution of this type of e kaciko across our data set. Let us examine more discourses in which this type of e kaciko appears. Excerpt (35) is an example of everyday talk from a television drama script. Two men, Speakers A and B, bump into each other in front of the house of Speaker B’s girlfriend. Speaker B does not like Speaker A, who is a friend of his girlfriend (Mili), and Speaker A is aware of this 20 This TV news clips can be found at http://news.kbs.co.kr/news/NewsView.do?SEARCH_NEWS_CODE=2440006&retRef=Y&source=http://s earch.naver.com/search.naver%3Fsm=tab_hty.top%26where=nexearch%26ie=utf8%26query=%22%EC% A0%9C%EA%B0%80+%EA%B0%80%EC%B6%9C%ED%95%B4+%EA%B0%80%EC%A7%80%EA %B3%A0+%EB%8F%88%EC%9D%B4+%ED%95%84%EC%9A%94%ED%95%B4+%EA%B0%80%E C%A7%80%EA%B3%A0%22. The speaker’s utterance is shown between 1:13 and 1:22. 84 fact; this is the shared information between the two interlocutors. Let us see how these two interlocutors interact and manage the discourse in which e kaciko appears. (35) (( Everyday Talk)) A1: Ce…(showing the food container) Mili-hanthey i ke cwu-lyeko (: :) Well Mili-DAT this thing give-in order to ‘Well… (I’m here) to give this to Mili…’ B1: ((Staring)) (xx) A2: Ce-nun sikan-i nem nuc-ese an o-lyeko ha-yess-nuntey, I-NOM Time-NOM too late-CONN NEG come-intend to-PAST-CONN Miyengi halmeni-ka mili achim panchan eps-tako (: :) kactacwu-lako Miyeng grandma-NOM Mili breakfast dish none-QUOT bring-QUOT Cin--cca ce-nun nem nuc-e kaciko an o-lyeko kule-yss-nuntey (…) Truly I-NOM too late-E KACIKO NEG come-intend to do so-PAST-CONN ‘Because it was too late, I didn’t want to come but… Miyeng’s grandma told me that Mili would have no food for her breakfast so I brought her (this)… I truly didn’t want to come because it was too late, but…’ B2: ((Looking unkindly at A)) Nay-ka mwul-ess-nayo? I-NOM ask-PAST-CDINTR ‘Did I ask you (about it)?’ A3: Ani-cyo. No-CDE ‘No.’ B3: ((Going off)) A4: ((Watching him walk away)) hhh INTJ 85 TV Drama, Goodbye Solo, Episode 1 The very first notable thing of this discourse is the two interlocutors’ contrasting talking behaviors in terms of the number of speech tokens; speaker B produces only 2 words, while Speaker A utters 26 words. Throughout the above discourse where two interlocutors interact, we can easily sense that they are placed in an unpleasant situation and therefore Speaker A is making a mitigating gesture. In A1, Speaker A initiates this conversation as he is trying to explain the purpose of his visit although there is no question asked by Speaker B; and, the utterance ends incomplete. From B1, furthermore, Speaker A becomes aware of Speaker B’s hostile attitude. Another salient feature of this discourse is how two participants exchange their utterances. That is, contrary to the normally anticipated sequence of turn-taking in conversations, speaker B chooses to remain silent to express his stance toward the given situation instead of verbally responding. A. Pragmatic device: Silence and reticence in interaction With respect to silence, in typological literatures it is generally argued that in East Asian communities including China, Japan, as well as Korea, speakers show preference for silence as a politeness strategy (Bailey 2000; Ellwood 2004, 2009; Nakane 2012). However, this does not seem to be the case in terms of such typological perspectives in the discourse above, given that in B1 Speaker B certainly raises tensions by posing silence. Therefore, in this context silence must be analyzed in accordance with the general view of discourse analysis. That is, silence can often be taken as indicating the ‘refusal to acknowledge or engage with an interlocutor’ (Baker and Ellege, 2011:132). Accordingly, Speaker A becomes even more anxious about the situation or state of affairs in which he finds himself. 86 B. Pragmatic device: Self-repetition in interaction In A2, we may observe that the utterance is noticeably long, with several pauses and repetitions. Let us now analyze in what context and how the repetition occurs, which resulted in the lengthening of the utterance. (36) a. Ce-nun sikan-i nem nuc-ese an o-lyeko hay-ss-nuntey, I-NOM Time-NOM too late-CONN NEG come intend to-PAST-CONN ‘I didn’t want to come because it was too late (…)’ b. Cincca ce-nun nem nuc-e kaciko an o-lyeko kuley-ss-nuntey Truly I-NOM too late-E KACIKO NEG come-intend to do so-PAST-CONN ‘Truly, I didn’t want to come because it was too late (…)’ Both (36a) and (36b) are excerpted from (35:A2) and contain the same content. Utterance (35:A2) is initiated by (36a), where Speaker A explains the reason why he did not intend to come in the first place. Next, while repeating the content of (36a), the speaker employs a different connective, i.e.,e kaciko instead of the previous one, ese. Thereby, we may wonder what Speaker B intends to emphasize by deploying e kaciko in discourse. See the following example: (37) a. Because it was too late, I didn’t want to come. (=A) b. [Please understand that] A. The utterance in (36a) can also be expressed as (37a). If we suppose (37a) as ‘A,’ then (36b), which contains e kaciko, can be expressed as (37b), which contains the pragmatic meaning shown in the square brackets and the content ‘A.’ That is, the speaker’s intention of uttering ‘A’ is expressed as the meaning shown in the square brackets, and this intention is implicitly encoded 87 by using e kaciko instead of ese, although it is not explicitly uttered. That is, he does not apologize for what happens; meanwhile he consistently attempts to clarify and rectify what is being misunderstood by Speaker B. Speaker A is floundering to explain his original intention, which was not to visit Mili. Therefore, he employs e kaciko in an attempt to emphasize (37a) and seek Speaker B’s understanding. In addition to the use of e kaciko, in (36b) the adverb cincca, which means “truly,” co-occurs to further stress the speaker’s intention. It can be concluded that e kaciko serves to mark speech acts in this discourse as anticipating the participant’s being in his shoes. Thus, utterance (36b) potentially invites inference (37b) based on the causal relation. In other words, the interlocutor is expected to adequately infer this meaning, and this can happen only after the interlocutor has acquired the pragmatic meaning of e kaciko. Despite the fact that Speaker A is attempting to begin a discourse, Speaker B evidently refuses to engage in the discourse. In B2 he interrupts Speaker A’s utterances after a long nonverbal response and eventually expresses an irritated emotion. However, soon after his utterance becomes discursive, he realizes that Speaker B is not receptive at all. Therefore, Speaker A attempts to defend himself and convince Speaker B while providing further information to support that his visit is not voluntarily made in the first place by stating that “Miyeng’s grandma told me that Mili would have no food for her breakfast so I brought her this.” In addition to the sequencing of utterances, repetition suggests that Speaker A strongly intends to avoid being accused, while his face becomes threatened as matters stand. Repetition is, needless to say, an immensely natural phenomenon in everyday talk. The research on repetition is widely approached by various disciplines, such as cognitive science, communication, and of course pragmatics and discourse studies. In natural discourse, the repetition of equivalent content can be used to achieve emphasis, to ‘give out important interactional signals’ such as the speaker’s lexical competence (McCarthy, 1998:115). In the same vein, Holmes & Stubbe (2003) discuss that in spoken discourse self-repetition functions to intensify the force of basic meaning. In addition, they also show the case that repetition is used as 88 a softener when managing and moderating the speech situation. As widely discussed, repetition varies in its forms and functions according to different contexts. From Bazzanella (2011:249)’s research, repetition is observed to function as a useful cognitive device in an ‘efficient text- building’ strategy as well as a ‘powerful resource’ in conversation and interaction. 4.5.3.2 Making an apology Analogously, e kaciko is related with the social act of “asking for the interlocutor’s understanding” in the following discourse, which signals a similar pragmatic meaning to that in (35). The very distinctive feature throughout the process of this discourse is that the speaker admits his own mistake and outwardly begs for the interlocutor’s mercy. See how e kaciko is presented in such a discourse. (38) ((Public Broadcasting talk: Conversation with President 21 )) A1: Yenghwa-eyes-man maylyekcek i-n cwul al-asste-ni silmwul po-ato acwu Movie-LOC-only attractive-COP-know-PAST-CONN real see-CONN very Calsayngkye-ss-neyyo. Handsome-PAST-CDE ‘I knew that you were attractive in the movie, but you look very handsome in person’ B1: Mwe-l cilmwunha-yss-nunci-nun alatul-usye-ss-ciyo? What-ACC ask-PAST-CMPT-EMP understand-HON-PAST-CDINTR ‘Do you understand what he asked you?’ A2 : Cikum-to kyeysok sonnim-i tuleo-pnikka? Cinanpen-ey kilok Now-also continuously guest-NOM enter-INTERR last time-TEMP record Seywu-ess-tanun-tey-kkaci poto-lul mos pwa-ss-nuntey, 21 This discourse footage can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCOKMh7huzo. 89 Build-PAST-QUOT-point-until report-ACC NEG see-PAST-CONN cikum kyeysok kwankayk-i nulena-ko iss-supnikka? Now continuously audience-NOM increase-PROG-FDINTR ‘Are many people still coming to see the movie? On the news I’ve heard that the movie has been breaking records in drawing audiences. Is it still increasingly attracting audiences?’ C1: Yey, kkwucwunhi tuleo-ko iss-supnita. Yes steadily enter-PROG-FDE ‘Yes. Audiences are steadily coming to see it.’ A3: Ku ke ecikanhi (: :), nacwungey pitio kaciko cip-ey kactanoh-ko tto The thing quite later video KACIKO home-LOC take-CONN again Po-keyss-te-lako , hayethun chwukhaha-pnita. Ku mwuncey-ey tayhayse-yo, watch-SUP-SENS-RPT anyways congratulate D the question about- CDINTR ce-nun kulehkey sayngkakha-pnita. Wuli, cokum cen-ey ilum-ul I-NOM like that think-FDE we a little before-TEMP name ACC Icemek-ess-e. Forget-PAST-CPE ‘I think people will keep the movie as a video at home and watch it again and again. Anyway, congratulations! Let me answer the question…a while ago…I forgot your name (of Speaker C)’ B2: Icwunki ssi Lee, Junki Mr. ‘It’s Mr. Junki Lee.’ A4 : Icwunki ssi(: :) na-nun kongkil ssi(: :) kimkongkil-inka i kongkil-inka Lee, Junki Mr. I-NOM Kongkil Mr. Kim, Kongkil-INTR Lee, Kongkil-INTR Molla kaciko (: :) nay-ka ilum (: :) icwunkil ssi, icwunki ssi, 90 not know-E KACIKO I-NOM name Lee, Junkil Mr. Lee, Junki Mr mianha-pnita. Sutha-ka sutha-lul al-aya toy-nuntey (…) sorry-FDE Star-NOM star-ACC know-should-CONN ‘Mr. Junki Lee, I didn’t know whether Mr. Kongkil was Mr. Kim Kongkil or Mr. Lee Kongkil. Mr. Lee Junki, I’m sorry. I’m a star ((celebrity)) and you’re a star, so I should have known your name.’ (Audiences and all speakers are laughing) The excerpt presented above is from a public conversation with the president of South Korea in 2006. Speaker A, the former president of South Korea, is answering a question asked by Speaker C (a Korean movie actor who attends as one of the panelists) about the screen quota system in South Korea. In the preceding co-text, Speaker B asks if Speaker A considers that the US forced South Korea to amend the screen quota system in order to protect US films in the Korean market. As seen in A1, Speaker A opens up his utterances by complementing Speaker C’s attractive appearance. This act is construable as an attempt to loosen the tensions caused by the nature of Speaker C’s question. In fact, at the time in 2006, the screen quota system had ignited heated debates in Korea and attracted public attention since the rising movie star Speaker C was announced as a participant in the Conversation with President as a panelist. In B1 Speaker A’s attempt is interrupted by the discussion host Speaker B, and Speaker A is seemingly asked to return to the question. Yet, before answering Speaker C’s question directly, in A2 Speaker A asks Speaker C about the movie that he appears in. As soon as Speaker C answers A2’s question, in A3 Speaker A comments on the movie and congratulates its success. Up to this point (from A1), the utterances flow very smoothly. Soon after, however, Speaker A admits that he has forgotten Speaker C’s name when Speaker A intends to return to the question. Speaker B as seen in B2 informs Speaker A the name of Speaker C. 91 After being reminded of the correct name by Speaker C, in A4 Speaker A begins to produce substantial slips of the tongue. In fact, he utters Speaker C’s name incorrectly four times soon after being reminded of it, and he starts to explain how he happens to forget Speaker B’s name again; he gets confused by mixing up Speaker B’s real name and the name of his movie role character. In the meantime, Speaker A initiates a repair sequence in A4 to redress his own faux pas. All of these devices, such as substantial pause, hesitation, and self-repair, indicate that the speaker is attempting to clarify or rectify what he uttered previously. In fact, the clarifying and explicating process is significantly comparable to the fact that the rest of Speaker A’s utterances throughout the discourse continue without pause or hesitation. Thereby, Speaker A offers an apology for the blunders and discourtesy he caused and e kaciko is deployed in the stretch of speech. A. Facework and politeness strategies The notion of ‘face’ and its related terms were first introduced by Goffman (1967). According to Goffman, there are two kinds of ‘facework,’ ‘preventive’ and ‘restorative.’ The former refers to ‘avoiding face-threating acts,’ while the latter refers to ‘restoring the face that has been lost.’ Face-threatening acts in general refer to all kinds of situations or events which negatively threaten someone’s face viz. acts that cause someone to feel embarrassed or humiliated, and so forth. Brown and Levinson (1978:66) define ‘face’ as “something that is emotionally invested, and can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction.” According to their discussion (1978:61), face comprises two aspects: a) negative face (wishing for freedom from imposition) and b) positive face (wishing to preserve positive self-image and to be appreciated by the interlocutor). In other words, our negative face wants to “be unimpeded by others” and our positive face wants to “be desirable to others” (Brown and Levinson, 1978:68). 92 In their later work, Brown and Levinson (1987) attempt to link Goffman’s (1976) work, which is considered the groundwork of facework research, with Grice’s (1975) CP, which is credited as being one of the most influential works in pragmatics with the notion of face. In the theory, based on Goffman’s (1967) view on face, Brown and Levinson (1987:61) discuss that every adult member of a society has a basic claim for having a self-image of himself to present to the public. Brown and Levinson (1987) indicate that the members often encounter situations in which she or he needs to violate Grice’s maxims for various reasons. They consider politeness as a plausible reason for the deviant decision because the speaker’s face is subject to threatening acts in interactions throughout everyday life. With respect to face-threatening acts, Brown and Levinson (1978:65-67) provide two basic parameters to categorize them. First, whose face is being threatened, is it the speaker’s or the addressee’s? Second, which face is being threatened, is it positive or negative face? Table 4. Categorization of face-threatening acts in accordance with parameters Speaker Addressee Positive Face apologies, acceptance of a compliment, self-humiliation and confessions. complaints, criticisms, accusations, mentions of taboo topics, interruptions Negative Face expressing gratitude, accepting a thank- you, an apology or an offer, and making promises instances in which the addressee is pressured to accept or reject a future act of the speaker (e.g., offers, promises), or when the addressee has reason to believe that her or his goods are being coveted by the speaker Based on Brown and Levinson’s parameters (1978), Wagner (2004:22-23) discusses face- threatening acts and provides sufficient examples of acts that correspond to each category. As seen in Table 4, discussions of Brown and Levinson (1978) and Wagner (2004:22-23) are tabularized for discussion in this research. 93 B. Apologies and facework Traditionally the speech act of apologies is, in the research on facework, widely discussed with respect to negative politeness strategies. Although apologies are an example of face-threatening acts to the Speaker’s positive face, drawing upon our discussion of face- threatening acts to analyze the speech act of apologies we must take multiple factors/parameters into account. On the one hand, making an apology is an act which threatens the speaker’s positive face. As the speaker’s positive face is being threatened, she or he intends to restore and maintain a positive self-image. Consequently, it is anticipated that the ‘equilibrium between the speaker and addressee (Leech, 1983:125)’ will be maintained. On the other hand, from the addressee’s point of view, the addressee’s face had already been threatened from the moment the speaker caused a problematic situation. In addition, the addressee is put in another situation of getting her or his face threatened again in the sense that she or he is asked to accept the apology offered by the speaker afterwards. That is, the addressee’s negative face may be threatened if she or he feels pressure to accept the offer or request. Adopting this discussion, we shall now analyze the utterance below as well as the given contexts. (39) [Please understand that] I’m sorry because I forgot your name. Here, e kaciko functions not only to link two clauses in a causal relation but also to invite the interlocutor to infer the pragmatic meaning that is given in the bracket in (39). This pragmatic meaning carries the speaker’s earnest attitude, which is a wish (to be forgiven by Speaker C) in this case, toward the interlocutor and thus e kaciko is practiced as a speech act tool of ‘seeking for the interlocutor’s understanding.’ From the addressee, Speaker C’s view, hereby his face becomes threatened, and he feels pressure by being asked to accept Speaker A’s apology. The degree of pressure varies depending on the power relationship between the speaker and the addressee. For example, in excerpt (35) the interpersonal relationship is relatively 94 symmetrical, whereas in (38) the relation between the president and his interlocutor is seemingly asymmetrical given their social statuses. Therefore, we may presume that the addressee of (38) Speaker C is more likely to be threatened in terms of negative face when being asked to accept the apology. Thereafter he is faced with a choice for his stance, that is, to be supportive or not. 22 Of course, there is another important factor in deciding the degree of face-threatening and pressure, the way the situation can be weighed in terms of severity given the nature of the problem and the given contexts. As for (38), although the degree of severity can vary depending on the sociocultural context, universally (or at least in Korean culture) forgetting your interlocutor’s name (and subsequently asking for it again) when conversing can be perceived as not paying sufficient attention to the person or situation. Thus, one can give the impression that he or she is not entirely engaged in the conversation, which works against the goal of being a cooperative interlocutor. Based on the laughter presented after (38:A4), we may conclude that the blunders and discourtesy Speaker A brought in is considered relatively less serious. Therefore, the strand of face-threatening acts in this case is fully solved. Hence, the interaction between participants by employing e kaciko is proved well encoded and decoded, in terms of forming a complete and conclusive discourse. C. How to apologize using e kaciko In our daily lives we are often placed in situations in which we either owe someone an apology or are offered an apology in various contexts. As we discussed thus far, e kaciko can effectively convey social acts, and indeed it is very ‘pragmatically’ practiced in the speech of related speech acts such as ‘asking for forgiveness,’ ‘providing excuses for one’s troubles,’ and the like. Owing to the frequency of contexts and the pragmatically-practicality of e kaciko, in 22 Note that apologies have also been claimed as ‘supportive’ acts (Fraser & Nolan, 1981; Goffman, 1972; Leech, 1983; Owen, 1983) or ‘face-supporting’ acts (Holmes, 1995). 95 Korean conversation we often witness that apologies are strategically offered in a fixed sequence as below: (40) Acknowledgment (what trouble is caused by the speaker) – E KACIKO – “I’m sorry” This can be interpreted as “I’m sorry because I caused some trouble” and here e kaciko functions to indicate the casual relation. More importantly, as we discussed in detail throughout this section, the speaker expresses her or his attitudes toward the addressee i.e., intending to convey her or his wish of being understood and forgiven by the addressee. More interestingly, some corpus data indicates that the speaker sometimes withholds the succeeding clause after the causal connective e kaciko, “I’m sorry,” as seen below: (41) I (: :) cey-ka palum com an coh-a kaciko (…) haithun (…) Well I-NOM pronunciation a little bit NEG good-E KACIKO anyway ‘…because my pronunciation is not so good… anyways….’ Sejong Corpus 7CM00004 Throughout the discourse from which (41) is excerpted, a lecture is given on computer programming. The speaker is introducing some information and explaining some technical procedures. By the moment he arrives at (41) he has produced a number of slips of the tongue and therefore he mentions some excuses for his bad pronunciation. The interesting fact here is that he asks to be excused to the audience, and does not necessarily need to utter “I’m sorry.” Instead, he slurs his speech after e kaciko and attempts to take the track back to his speech. Therefore, he tries to clear up the discursively displayed utterances where e kaciko appears, and the word “anyways” thus performs the required speech function. Across our data, in some discourses like that in (41), subordinate clauses are often ‘unsaid’ right after e kaciko. This result suggests that 96 the speaker can decide whether to explicitly express an apologetic attitude by saying “forgive me” or “I’m sorry.” If not fully uttered, such as in omitted speech, we may say that she or he intends to avoid ‘taking a too apologetic stance’ and therefore, in a way, saving her or his face. 4.5.4 Comparing the causative e kaciko in different contexts Before winding up the discussion here, we shall compare two examples of e kaciko that appear in two different causal contexts. As repeatedly noted in earlier sections, one of the semantic functions of e kaciko, and also the most frequent one, is the causative connective. The functions can be distinguished by analyzing the speakers’ intentions implied by the deployment of e kaciko in each context, as shown in the following: (42) a. Molla kaciko --- mianha-pnita. Not know-E KACIKO sorry-FDE ((extracted and revised from the example (38)) ‘[Please understand that] I’m sorry I forgot your name.’ b. Nemwu manhun mwul-i naylyewa kaciko ilpwu yusilitway-ss-supnita. Too much water-NOM come down-E KACIKO part washed away-PAST-FDE (extracted from the example (31b)) ‘[It is a pity that] Since too much water came down, some parts of the land were washed away.’ Although the occurrences of e kaciko in (42a) and (42b) both can be interpreted as because or since, the respective intentions behind the speakers’ use of e kaciko are different, as shown in parentheses in (42); one is ‘please understand that~,’ and the other is ‘it is a pity that~.’ These differentiated meanings result from the respective different contexts. That is, the negative consequence in (42a) is caused by the speaker himself, which is an internal factor, whereas in 97 (42b) it is not caused by the speaker but by an external factor. Moreover, (42a) is directly addressing the interlocutor and expressing the speaker’s attitude toward the addressee, whereas the speaker poses his stance toward what is said, i.e., the given situation. The strongest distinctive nature of these two types of contexts along with the uses of e kaciko is that in (42a) the series of interpersonal pragmatic issues, such as facework, politeness, etc., are greatly interrelated, whereas in (42b) the pragmatic issues are less relevant--instead, there emerges a pragmatic meaning toward the given circumstances. 4.6 Projecting the speaker’s judgment outward to the addressee in contexts where counter- expectations are met Interestingly, utterances using e kaciko are also found across discourse where it functions to express the speaker’s judgment toward the addressee, similar to the pragmatic use of e kaciko expressing the speaker’s resentment in causal contexts that we have discussed in the previous section. The major point that distinguishes these three usages of e kaciko is the semantic nature of the contexts: (a) causal, (b) adversative and (c) conditional. Needless to say, it is compelling to delve into them because e kaciko appears in these three different contexts that are in mutually incompatible relationships to express ‘seemingly similar’ pragmatic meanings. In spite of the analogy in terms of ‘expressing the speaker’s attitude toward the interlocutor,’ three specific pragmatic uses of e kaciko will be explicated in accordance with the identified contexts. Therefore, we will first discuss this in greater detail by examining discourses in which e kaciko is associated with other constructions in adversative contexts to play a particular pragmatic role and in which certain interactions are performed by the participants. 98 4.6.1 Expressing the speaker’s surprise in adversative contexts Substantial instances of corpus data demonstrate that e kaciko is used to indicate contrast. For example, the connective nuntay is also known to express this meaning of contrast, but while such connectives (as well as e kaciko) share the semantic meaning of but, e kaciko is sometimes used in a way that is distinct from the others. The following example is a conversation between a boy (Speaker A) and his girlfriend (Speaker B). As soon as they turn a corner, Speaker A sees that Speaker B is approaching the car. After Speaker A slams on the brakes, Speaker B gets into the car and begins to talk to him. (43) A1: Hhh B1: ((Staring at Speaker A with a smile)) Ttekpokki mek-ko siph-e. Sintangtong Tteokbboki eat-want to-CPD Sintangtong Ka-llay? Go-CPINTR:PROP ‘I want to eat Tteokbokki ((spicy rice cake)). Shall we go to Sindang-dong ((a place famous for Tteokbokki))?’ A2 : ((Upset)) Sintangtong-un mwusun (.) ne, ne (: :) cwuk-ullako i key cincca Sindang-dong-NOM what you you die intend to this thing truly myech pen-ul nay, nay ka malha-y. Cha, cha-ka o-nuntey keptaykali how many CL-ACC I I- NOM tell-CPE car car-NOM come-CONN fear epsi (.) ne, ne cengsin-i iss-e, eps-e? without you you mind-NOM have CPINTR not have CPINTR ‘Why on earth are you talking about Sindang-dong? Do you want to die? I’ve told you so many times... A car was approaching recklessly! Are you like out of your mind, or what?’ B2 : ((Smiling)) Sayngkin ke-n melccenghay kaciko ppekhamyen kwaynhi Looking NOMZ-NOM normal-E KACIKO frequently pointlessly 99 Hungpwunha-y kacko 23 pepekely-e? Upset-E KACIKO stutter-CPINTR ((imitating the speaker A)) Ni ni ka, ce--- ce--- ce---, cengsin hhh You you NOM, mi---mi---mi--- mind ‘You look normal, but how come you get upset easily and stutter? You, you….mi-mi-mi mind…’ A3: Eywu eywu…cincca ((driving away)) INTJ really ‘Bahhhhhh…. really?!!!’ TV Drama, Goodbye Solo, Episode 1 In A1, Speaker A is startled and speechless, but despite his reaction, in B1 Speaker B asks him if he wants to go eat as if nothing had happened. This whole situation causes him to become even more upset and even stutter, as shown in A2. Even after Speaker A’s furious accusation, as a response to A2 Speaker B still remains smiling, and even seems to enjoy teasing and watching him, and there she is making her utterance employing e kaciko. For the analysis of Speaker B’s utterance in B2, see the following two propositions below: (44) a. Sayngkin ke-n melccenghay kaciko Looking thing-NOM normal-E KACIKO ‘You look normal.’ (Your appearance looks calm) b. Pppekhamyen kwaynhi hungpwunha-n--- ta Frequently pointlessly upset-PRS-CPE ‘You get upset so easily.’ 23 This use of e kaciko is explained in the previous section, that is, it expresses the speaker’s feeling of regret or pity toward a negative consequence. 100 (44a) and (44b) are connected by e kaciko and, as shown in B2 the most likely translation of e kaciko into English here is but. By contrasting Speaker A’s normal appearance and his hot- tempered personality, as shown in (44a) and (44b), Speaker B is uttering e kaciko in order to encode her intention. The fact recognized by Speaker B in (44a) allows her to infer that Speaker A would be likewise behaving normally. This inference arises from conventional implicatures. The term ‘conventional implicature’ was proposed by Grice (1975:26-30) as opposed to the term ‘conversational implicature.’ According to Grice, the former arises from the speaker’s inference based on social conventions, common ideas, etc., whereas the latter directly comes from the meaning of a particular word. The assumption that a decent looking person would behave nicely in accordance with his appearance relies on schematized social perceptions. However, it turns out that Speaker A behaves in a way that contradicts her assumptions and expectations. These assumptions and expectations are not overtly presented from what is said but are rather suggested in the utterance by employing e kaciko. Hence, the intended pragmatic meaning of e kaciko can be expressed as follows: (45) [I’m surprised to see that] You look normal but get upset so easily. After realizing that the conventional implicature is not integrated into the reality of the situation, Speaker B expresses her surprise, as shown in (45). Here, e kaciko implies her intention to convey a meaning of ‘I’m surprised to see that ~,’ while also indicating the adversative relations of the preceding and subsequent clauses. Traugott and Dasher (2002:157) discuss ‘adversity’ in terms of speakers/writers using specific markers to signal that they are expressing beliefs or points of view contrary to their own or the interlocutors’ expectations regarding the states of affairs under discussion.’ Ergo, the pragmatic use of e kaciko can be discussed in terms of it functioning to 101 invoke counter-expectations and thereby resulting in the utterance explicitly claiming that the speaker is surprised to witness the contradiction. Given the interactions made between Speaker A and B through the discourse, the utterance in B2 is hardly seen as indicating simple surprise. The utterance including e kaciko expresses the speaker’s provocative action toward the addressee. Therefore, Speaker A cannot calm himself down and thus expresses his unpleasant feelings by making some growling noises, as in A3. A. Flouting the maxim of quantity and its implications One more characteristic use of e kaciko with this meaning can be found as presented in the example below. (46) Sayngkin ke-nun melccenghay-kaciko --- Looking thing-NOM normal-E KACIKO ‘You look normal…’ In (46), the subsequent clause of the utterance is omitted. Moreover, the speaker only utters positive content; in fact, here what is unsaid is clearly inferable throughout the discourse. The content of what is unsaid here is more important than that of what is said. Ergo, we can assume that the speaker intentionally chose to be less informative, which is flouting the maxim of quantity (Grice, 1975). This way of employing e kaciko can be analyzed in two ways. First, the speaker assumes that the utterance without being followed by a clause is sufficiently informative; thus, it is redundant to utter the following clause. Second, the speaker intends to avoid being dared; in particular, when the subsequent clause contains a negative utterance, the speaker 102 decides not to mention it. The utterance including e kaciko in (46) is similar to B2 in (43), but the speakers’ intentions are different; that is, they differ in terms of whether or not they explicitly say the intention. Here e kaciko conveys inferred contrast. The interlocutor must take an action of inference to interpret the meaning of e kaciko that contrasts the subordinate clause to the missing main clause. B. E kaciko in confined discourses More arrestingly, throughout the corpus data this use of e kaciko is found in confined discourses. Let us examine further examples to discuss this use. The following discourse occurs in a sauna. (47) ((A few people are sitting in a sauna including Speakers A, B, and C)) A1: Appa, ce acessi mom-ey kkoch, mwusun kkoch-i-ya? Dad that Mr. body-LOC flower what kind flower-COP-CPINTR ‘Dad, what is the flower on that man’s body?’ B1: (Speaker B and his friend are staring at Speaker A) C1: (Nervously talking to his son, Speaker A) coyonghi hay. Quietly do-IMP:CP ‘Be quiet.’ A2: Mwusun kkoch-i-ntey? What kind flower-COP-CPINTR ‘What kind of flower is that, eh?’ C2: Coyonghi… Quietly ‘Quietly…’ 103 B2: (Cutting in C2 and smiling at Speaker A) khsumosu. Khsumosu al-ci? Cosmos Cosmos know-CPINTR Kaul-ey kilka-ey manhi phieisnun hanulhanulhan kkoch. Autumn TEMP roadside LOC many be in bloom airy flower ‘Cosmos. You know cosmos, right? The flowers that bloom a lot at roadsides in the autumn.’ C3: (Holding his son’s hand and leaving the sauna) naka-ca Get out SUP: CP ‘Let’s get out.’ B3: Hhh (: :) casik-i (: :) ay-lul ettehkey kyoyuk-ul sikhi-n ke-ya"~ INTJ jerk-NOM kid-ACC how education-ACC give-NOMZ-CPE Khosumosu cengtonun kalchy-e cwu-eya-ci, hhh eypi-ka tway-kaciko Cosmos degree teach-provide-should-CPE INTJ father-NOM become-E KACIKO kuttan kes-to an kaluchi-ko hhh---hhh --- that kind thing-even NEG teach-CONN INTJ ‘How did the jerk educate the kid? He should have taught him the name of cosmos. As a father, he didn’t even teach his kid that kind of thing.’ TV Drama, Goodbye Solo, Episode 4 The innocent young boy, Speaker A, troubles his father, Speaker C, by asking him about the flower tattoo that a mobster, Speaker B, has on his body. Speaker C gets nervous and tries to stop his son, as in C1, but the boy cannot help but ask repeatedly. Speaker B, who has been just watching and overhearing the father and boy, finally decides to engage in their conversation and cuts into Speaker C’s utterance as in B2. Although Speaker B kindly teaches the boy the name of cosmos, as in B2, Speaker C seems intimidated by Speaker B’s mobster-like appearance and rushes out of the sauna room. Thereby, Speaker B’s emotion is outwardly expressed toward 104 Speaker C by using e kaciko as in B3. Similar to the interpretation of e kaciko within the previous excerpt above, its closest semantic meaning here is also but. (48) He is a father, but he didn’t teach his son that kind of thing. [I’m surprised to see that] He didn’t even teach his son the name of cosmos. Here, but implies beyond its semantic meaning of contrast. Speaker B realizes that the given situation contradicts his own beliefs or expectations with respect to teaching a child the name of the flower, cosmos, which he believes is a very basic thing to do when educating one’s child in the role of a father. Ergo, he expresses his judgmental stance of surprise toward the addressee, such as ‘an unqualified father,’ when witnessing this unexpected situation, and the speaker’s stance is encoded by e kaciko, as indicated in parentheses. Moreover, the collocated vocabulary in B3 well associate with e kaciko to reflect the speaker’s stance. That is, Speaker B indexes Speaker C, who is criticized as being an unqualified father, as casik ‘jerk,’ and the demonstrative pronoun kuttan ‘that’ the speaker uses connotes a negative and derogatory tone, which contributes to the speaker’s stance becoming more salient. As earlier mentioned, this type of using e kaciko is found in particular types of discourses. Many instances of corpus data indicated that e kaciko in adversative contexts is confined to being used with respect to topics concerning the addressee’s appearance, personality, or qualifications. C. E kaciko and schemata activation In the same vein, both of the speakers in (40a) and (40b) also make utterances about surprising findings that do not match with their preexisting judgments or speculations about the addressees, which had formed as fixed ideas regarding the addressees’ appearances. 105 (49) a. ((While a woman watching her daughter-in-law is playing with her little nephew)) Sayngkin ke-nun ssalssalmac-kwu chakapkey sayngkye kacikwu ay-nun Looking thing-NOM unfriendly-CONN cold appear-E KACIKO kid-NOM Cham cohahay really like-CPE ‘You look unfriendly and cold, but she really likes kids.’ [I’m surprised to see that] She really likes kids. TV Drama, Gwutseyela Gumswuna, Episode 128 b. ((While a college student talking about her experience in the US as an exchange student)) Ku--- nay yeph-ey anc-assten namcaay kathun kyengwu-nun meli mak polasayk-ulo The my next-LOC sit-PAST boy like case-NOM hair very purple-INS Sayspolasayk-ulo mwultuly-e kaciko-nun, e--- kuntey kulen Deep-purple-INS dye-E KACIKO-EMP INTJ but like that Kyay-ka (::) Swuep-eyn ceyil yelsimhi mak tut-kwu (::) mak kyoswu-lang the boy-NOM class-LOC most hard very listen to-CONN very professor-with mak ikhey noncayng-to hak-wu (: :) ke toykey cham mesiss-telakwu-yo. very like this argument-even do-CONN the very truly awesome-RPT-CDE ‘There was a boy who sat next to me in class, he dyed his hair very deep purple, but he was the hardest working student and …even arguing with a professor during class…I thought he was awesome.’ ‘[I’m surprised to see that] He was a hard-working student.’ Sejong Corpus, 6CM00020 Different from the cases in (43) and (47), these contradictory discoveries turned out to be positive and thus lead them to state the unexpected positive surprise. Despite the positive aspect of the surprise, however, the preceding clauses attached with e kaciko still signal the speakers’ negative 106 stance. That is, especially in (49a), the mother-in-law states that now she has learned that her daughter-in-law likes children, and at the same time she expresses her negative attitude toward her daughter-in-law by mentioning her ‘unfriendly and cold appearance.’ Given the relationship between a mother-in-law and a daughter-in-law, the mother-in-law is relatively privileged to openly express her negative stance, which possibly signals implications such as a suggestive and provocative meaning, but not vice versa. Therefore, in typical Korean sociocultural contexts this type of e kaciko usage would be rarely produced by a junior or person of lower social rank, particularly when participating in a conversation such as that in the present example. The analyses of the discourses thus far indicate the noteworthy fact that e kaciko is deeply related with schemata. In other words, the way of realizing or interpreting the given situation cannot be isolated from the conceptions, ideas, or knowledge that are constructed and shared within the speech community, and sometimes it can be very individual-oriented judgments, such as ‘not teaching the name of cosmos disqualifies a man as a good father.’ Nonetheless, communication participants are believed to share substantial amounts of schemata and therefore can successfully process discourse to some extent. According to Widdowson (1996: 62-63), understanding how linguistic elements correspond with schematic elements of context is the path to achieving pragmatic meaning. Therefore, in order to successfully construct discourses using e kaciko in both directions--encoding and decoding--it should be well understood that e kaciko is exclusively practiced in terms of linguistic as well as sociocultural contexts. Otherwise, miscommunication can occur when a participant fails to interpret the pragmatic meaning of e kaciko beyond its semantic meaning or to activate the appropriate set of schemata. In the following sections, we will examine discourses in which the speaker uses e kaciko to express her or his attitude toward what is said or the addressee in conditional contexts. 107 4.6.2 Projecting the speaker’s judgmental opinion in conditional contexts Another pragmatic use of e kaciko expressing the speaker’s attitude toward the addressee is often found in conditional contexts. Similar to the adversative marking e kaciko, this use of e kaciko is basically related to counter-expectations. Here we will analyze the following excerpts and investigate the distinctive pragmatic meaning of e kaciko in discourse. (50) a. Nomwuhyen taythonglyeng-un cinantal 31 il chamye cengpwu sa Roh, Muhyun president-NOM last month 31 CL participatory government four cwunyen kinyem Kwukceng kwacey-uy haptong simphociem palen-ul anniversary Government administration task-GEN joint symposium speech-ACC thonghay “silceylo Kicasil-eyse kongpwuhay kaciko kwayen kisa-lul ssu through actually pressroom-LOC research-E KACIKO indeed articl-ACC write -l swu iss-nunya hanun kes-i kekceng”ilamye kica-tul-uy kisacakseng -can-INTR NOMZ-NOM worry QUOT reporter-PLR-GEN writing articles Hayngthay-lul piphanha-n kes-ulo 2 il allyecye-ss-ta. Behavior-ACC criticize-as to 2 CL reveal-PAST-WE ‘On the 31st of last month, it is revealed that President Muhyun Roh criticized news reporters’ conduct by saying “if they stay in the pressroom and do their research there, I quite doubt that they can actually write” at the 4 th anniversary of the Government Administration Tasks Symposium. Sekye Dail News, February 2, 2007 24 b. Kunponcekin mwuncey-lul haykyel-ul hay-ya toy-nuntey kunponcekin mwuncey-lul fundamental problem-ACC resolve-ACC do-must-CONN fundamental problem-ACC pakkwu-ci anh-umulo inhayse-nathana-ko iss-nun hyensangcekin mwuncey-tul-man 24 This article can be found at http://www.segye.com/content/html/2007/02/02/20070202000684.html. 108 change-NEG-because of-appear-PROG superficial problem-PLR-only pakkwu-lyeko ha-ntanun ke-cyo. Ilehkey hay kaciko-nun ce-nun change-inteding to-it is-CDE like this do-E KACIKO-EMP I-NOM cengchi pakkwu-l swu eps-ta ilehkey sayngkakha-pnita. politics change-cannot-WE like this think-FDE ‘The fundamental problems must be solved, but only superficial matters are considered while the fundamental issues are not tackled or reformed, you know. If it is done like this, I think that political reform won’t happen.’ YTN Radio, “Kang Jiwon ’s News, ” FM 94.5 (18:10~20:00), January 1, 2015 25 c. Totaychey i salam tul-i chengwatay pise lain-i what on earth this person-PLR-NOM Korean Presidential Residence Secretary-NOM mac-nunya, ike-pnita. Cen-ey ilehkey kactacw-es-teni kemchalun-tto right-CPINTR it is-FDE before-TEMP like this give-PAST-CONN prosecution-indeed coh tako telleng pat-ass-eyo. Ilen sanghwang-ilamyen kemchal like-CONN restlessly take-PAST-CDE like this situation-CONN prosecution swusa-ka --- kemchal-to caki cachey nay-eys-eto ike-nun an investigation-NOM prosecution-also themselves inside-LOC-also this thing-NOM NEG toy-keyss-ta wuli ilehkey hay kaciko swusa ceytaylo ha-keyss-nya become-SUP-WE we like this do-E KACIKO investigation properly do SUP-CSINTR ike nemwuna manhun kwenlyek-tul-i amthwu-lul peli-ko iss-nun this too much power-PLR-NOM veiled enmity-ACC take-PROG cenghwang kawuntey, kemchal-i iss-ko-yo (…) kulayse ce-nun circumstance middle prosecution-NOM exist-CONN-CDE therefore I NOM saynwulitang-i nase-ya toy-nta-nun ke-pnita. 25 This radio script can be found at http://radio.ytn.co.kr/program/?f=2&id=33586&page=1&s_mcd=0263&s_hcd=01. 109 Saenuri Party-NOM come forward-must-NOMZ-FDE ‘What on earth, what I’m saying is that…are those people really the Secretary of Cheonwadae (the Korean President’s Residence)? Earlier, they provided the prosecution (with the classified documents) and the prosecution took it restlessly. Under this circumstance, the prosecution themselves must realize that it won’t work this way and ask themselves whether the prosecution investigation would properly work if we keep working this way. Well, there are too many powers involved in the veiled enmity going on, and the prosecution is in the middle of it…(omitted)… So, I insist that the Saenuri Party (the conservative party of South Korea) must come forward (to handle the given problems).’ YTN TV News, December 15, 2014 26 As seen in (50a~c), across the corpus data the conditional connective e kaciko frequently appears in particular contexts in which participants debate or comment on political and social issues and the like. In (50a) a news article quotes the president as saying that he’s concerned that these days press reporters tend to research indoors (instead of canvassing for investigations). In (50b) the speaker on a radio show, who is a senator of the conservative party, points out the shortcomings of the proposed reforms of the Presidential system made by the party. In (50c), the spokeswoman of the opposition party is giving an interview on a TV news show. She provides a critical opinion about a political issue in which the current South Korean president’s younger brother is suspected of being implicated. 26 This News interview can be found at http://www.ytn.co.kr/_ln/0103_201412151517571808. 110 A. Achieving coherence using e kaciko As shown both in (50b) and (50c), the connective e kaciko is paired with phrases such as ilehkey ‘like this’ / kulehkey, celehkey ‘like that’+ ha ‘to do’ + y kaciko. E kaciko is attached to indexical expressions such as ‘doing (it) like this’ or ‘doing (it) like that,’ and refers to the aforementioned lengthy utterances. In this manner, e kaciko often participates as a management tool for constructing discourses. In fact, naturally constructed discourses tend to be rather discursive than neat or well-organized. The phrases ilehkey/celehkey/kulehkey hay kaciko and their referents therefore function to give the discourse a pragmatic coherence at the macro level. Of all the utterances in (50), e kaciko is used when the speaker is addressing particular problems. Thereby, the speaker is expressing her or his stance toward the given problems and projecting concerns in the clauses following e kaciko. In other words, they first evaluate what seems problematic in their understanding of things, and thus the clauses are expressed as ‘if’ or ‘unless’ in English, similar to conditional constructions. Thereafter, in subsequent clauses of e kaciko, the speakers utter their opinions straightforwardly, such as the utterances shown in (50a, b, and c): ‘I’m concerned if they can write news articles,’ ‘I think that politics can’t change,’ and ‘Will they investigate the case properly?’ Although each sentence in each example of (50) may look to be sporadically presented during discourse, they are actually mapped in accordance with the need to maintain discourse coherence. As we have examined thus far, e kaciko in conditional contexts is frequently used to indicate the speaker’s stance toward the given problematic issue by taking a schematized discoursal pattern: (a) posing a problematic issue and (b) projecting the speaker’s opinion on it in order. The fundamental purpose of composing this type of utterance is to suggest resolutions to the given problem. As presented in (50a), the utterance implies “Go canvass and investigate on the spot to write news articles better” although this is not overtly mentioned. This is performed by the conditional connective e kaciko, which is a perlocutionary effect that usually refers to possible 111 actions in contrast to how it is actually being done currently. On the other hand, in (50b) and (50c) the speakers suggest solutions to the problems she or he pointed out in the preceding co-texts in the succeeding discourses that follow. B. Related schemata This type of e kaciko usage is also found in everyday talk. Note that when the conditional connective e kaciko is deployed in face-to-face and more intimate interactions, we need to take interpersonal factors into consideration between interlocutors as well as the relevant strands of schema into account to analyze the interactions, and indeed to decode the pragmatic meaning appropriately. The following utterance is borrowed from the Basic Korean Dictionary from the National Institute of the Korean Language along its description of e kaciko. …indicating that the result of an action or status that is expressed in the preceding clause is maintained, or the result causes the succeeding action or status to emerge. (51) Kulehkey kongpwuhay kaciko sihem-ey pwuth-keyss-ni? Like that study -E KACIKO exam-LOC pass-SUP-CPINTRR Lit. If you study like that, will you pass the exam? Notwithstanding the description, it still seems difficult to provide a proper translation of the utterance (51) into English, and thereby only a literal interpretation is given, as shown above. This is because the description is established at the semantic level, and moreover confined to the causal relation. Therefore, here we shall take e kaciko into account as a conditional connective at the discourse level. 112 To begin with, a linguistic schema is activated that utterance (51) is not a type of question seeking a genuine answer; rather, it presupposes a negative answer to the question or a null answer. That is, e kaciko is used in the form of a rhetorical question with the intention of leading the interlocutor. The following indicates the possible interpretations of (51). (52) a. As long as you study like that, I doubt that you will pass the exam. b. I don’t think you can pass the exam as long as you keep studying like that. c. Study harder if you want to pass the exam. Instead of employing other connectives, using e kaciko enables the addressee to construe all the inference provided above. Once the utterance (51) is produced relying upon the speaker- addressee interaction, according to Traugott (2001:31), the communication participants recruit meanings. As a result of competing among (52a) ~ (52c) the addressee comes to achieve the interpretation(s) based on the given contexts and her or his relationship with the speaker. Hence, the utterance can be read as a friendly advising comment as (52a), or it may deliver a stronger or even forceful message that contains the speaker’s attitude toward the addressee, as in (52b) or (52c) that express the speaker’s cynical and doubtful stance about the addressee’s success on the exam. In particular, interpretation (52c) conveys that the speaker seeks the addressee’s reaction. To this end, e kaciko is used as a speech act tool to imply a perlocutionary effect. In addition to intimacy, owing to the possibility of conveying cynicism, the pragmatic use of e kaciko in this type of discourse is deeply associated with the sociocultural schemata. That is, in the Korean context “addressing the interlocutor’s problem,” the utterance employing e kaciko is frequently created by a senior speaker toward a younger addressee, not vice versa, or between symmetrical relations. Borrowing Ochs (1996)’s term, the use of e kaciko implies a ‘link between the speaker’s stance and social identity conveyed by cultural expectations.’ 113 C. E kaciko in rhetorical questions and facework The implied message of (51) may be straightforwardly/outwardly uttered as (52b) and (52c). However, the speaker chooses to produce her or his utterance as (51) using e kaciko over other ways for a few reasons. Frist, by using e kaciko the utterance may imply multiple messages as well as multiple ways to deliver depending on the contexts and/or the addressee’s receptive attitude. Consequently, the addressee begins to process perceiving the utterance, and this is how the communication participants negotiate meanings. Suppose that the speaker produces the message in a statement as below instead of utterance (51), and yet uses e kaciko. (53) Kulehkey kongpwuhay kaciko sihem-ey mos pwuth-e Like that study-E KACIKO exam-LOC NEG pass-CPE ‘You can’t pass the exam if you keep playing like that’ Utterance (53) is construable as either (53b) or (53c). The critical difference between (51) and (53) is that compared to (53), the speaker of (51) avoids using the negative particle mos ‘cannot’ and practices rhetorical strategizing. As discussed by Siemund (2001:1026-1027), rhetorical questions are found in all languages and they function in a comparable manner. As far as the Korean language is concerned, rhetorical questions are uttered as interrogatives “in a context in which the answer to them is given” and they make “indirect statements,” which is also generally considered to be the main functions of rhetorical questions. The speaker of (51) intentionally chooses to take the indirect way of presenting the message, which could possibly be expressed as in (53) instead. In terms of operating indirect statements, ‘facework’ is related and Paltridge (2006:72) indicates that face plays an important role in understanding why people choose to say things in particular ways. Then, for what purpose does the speaker use e kaciko and, moreover, why does her 114 utterance take the rhetorical question form? How is facework related here, and what does indirectness have to do with facework? According to Brown and Levinson’s parameters (1978) 27 , utterance (51) can be interpreted in two ways with respect to facework. First, in (51) the speaker presumably tries to avoid a face-threatening act by refraining from taking an adamant stance, on account of the nature of rhetorical questions. Hence, she avoided causing a negative situation by being polite; yet, she still succeeded in delivering what she intended to say. Second, the speaker avoided threatening the addressee’s face before either of their faces was lost, whereas in the first interpretation it is an act to save the speaker’s own face. Between these two interpretations, they may compete, or both interpretations may be taken depending on the interlocutor and the given contexts. D. Pragmatic ambiguity One additional salient point to discuss here is that the exact same utterance (51), which had just been asserted as an indirect and mitigating act, may also denote the speaker’s sarcastic stance. Needless to say, ‘being cautious about losing one’s face’ and ‘being sarcastic’ forms a conflict, and thus they are mutually incompatible. As utterance (51) showed, indirect utterances are often constructed allusively and thereby leave much unspoken. From a Gricean perspective, making utterances circuitous and uninformative is a critical violation. As a consequence, indirect speech acts may cause miscommunication and pragmatic ambiguity. However, the speaker of (51) is flouting Grice’s maxims. In other words, such speakers violate maxims intentionally in that they intend to express their attitude toward the addressee, or what has been said. 27 I discussed Brown and Levinson’s parameters (1987) in Section 4.5.3.2. With respect to face-threatening acts, Brown and Levinson (1978:65-67) provide two basic parameters to categorize them. First, whose face is being threatened, is it the speaker’s or the addressee’s? Second, which face is being threatened, is it positive or negative face? 115 Returning to the discussion of (51), we may conclude that pragmatic ambiguity is strategically caused by taking an indirect stance with the aid of the linguistic element e kaciko and the form of a rhetorical question. This is the way that pragmatic meanings arise, as we discussed in the previous section by quoting Widdowson (1996: 62-63). Thereby, the speaker appears to negotiate meanings by uttering (51) to the interlocutor. From the interlocutor’s stance, she or he decodes the utterance as a particular speech act with assistance from the knowledge supplied from the co-text or the social distance between the interlocutor and the speaker: either (a) expressing a concern or giving advice or (b) being sarcastic. For example, unless the physical context contains sufficient information to make a conclusion about ‘how much he plays or how diligently he studies,’ the speaker of (51) is presumably an intimate acquaintance, as he could gain the relevant knowledge from the utterance. E. Meaning negotiation The following example shows that when e kaciko is practiced in combination with an idiomatic expression in a rhetorical question form; it expresses a high degree of cynicism. (54) Ku mankhum mantul-e kaciko nwukwu kho-ey pwuth-ye? That much make-E KACIKO whose nose-LOC attach to-CPINTR You make (food) that much – e kaciko – will the food be fed to whom? Lit. Who will get fed up, if you make that much of food? ‘If you make that much of food, it won’t be enough (for the people)’ ‘I don’t think the food will be enough (for the people)’ In (54) the idiomatic expression that follows e kaciko is used when pointing out that the given amount of food or things appears to be insufficient for the number of people. The speaker projects 116 her or his opinion that ‘that much’ food will turn out to be in short supply. As is generally known, the speaker does not anticipate either a negative or a null answer to such rhetorical questions. Accordingly, the addressee expresses agreement on the speaker’s opinion unless she or he intentionally refuses to accept the opinion for some reason. As a further step, in this speech event particularly, the speaker is engaged in a speech act of requesting a consequent action as being ‘Let’s make more food’ or ‘Make more food.’ See the following figure. Figure 4. Process of meaning negotiation in accordance with utterance (54) Projecting the speaker’s opinion or judgment ↓ Seeking the addressee’s agreement on the speaker’s opinion or judgment ↓ Requesting rectification Even though the figure above shows the entire process of meaning negotiation of utterance (54), it absolutely rests on the addressee how far she or he goes in the process of interpretation. Although the speaker as shown in (54) does not outwardly force the addressee to make more food, the stance that the speaker is taking by using this particular idiomatic expression may cause the addressee to feel unpleasant, or even feel offended. That is, (54) may signal the speaker’s cynical attitude toward the addressee. Moreover, as discussed earlier, it might be construed as pompous advice due to the nature of rhetorical questions, which is unchallengeable. Thereby, this pragmatic use of e kaciko tends to be confined to symmetrical relations or in cases when the speaker is in a senior position. More specifically, the strand of speech acts including pointing out a problem, giving advice, and requesting to rectify a problem are more entitled to seniors in the Korean sociocultural context. 117 Drawing on the discussion thus far, the pragmatic use of e kaciko in both adversative and conditional contexts in which counter-expectations are embedded appears to bear the speaker’s attitude and thus the connective e kaciko can be described as having subjective meanings. That is, the speaker expresses the epistemic judgment viz. evaluation and projects her or his attitude toward the addressee so that it also inevitably conveys intersubjective meanings to some degree. According to Traugott (2001:31), this is the way the speaker recruits meanings that function to convey information to do the work of communication by implying the meanings of subjectivity and intersubjectivity. 4.7 Using e kaciko as a speech act tool for pre-events As discussed in the previous sections, discourses in which e kaciko is used concern what has already happened that caused the speakers to experience some trouble, that is, they concerned ‘post-events.’ In contrast, some discourses show that e kaciko appears when the speaker intends to mitigate face-threatening acts even before they actually happen, or when they are about to happen, that is, they concern ‘pre-events.’ 4.7.1 Making requests See how such discourses regarding pre-events may be constructed with the brief exchange below. (55) A: Onul cenyek-ey mwe hay-yo? Yenghwaphyo-ka sayngkye kaciko... Today evening TEMP what do-INTRR movie ticket-NOM have-E KACIKO ‘What are you doing this evening? Because I’ve got movie tickets… B: … 118 In (55), Speaker A initiates his utterance by asking the interlocutor about her plans for the evening and thereafter the clause including e kaciko follows. The notable aspect of this utterance is that the main clause is not constructed after the connective e kaciko. As the translation in (55A) suggests, e kaciko is construable as ‘because’ and still functions as a causal connective although the sentence is incomplete. In this regard, we may consider this to be a possible consequence of the order change between the main and subordinate clauses. See the following example. (56) * Yenghwaphyo-ka sayngkye kaciko onul cenyek-ey mwe hay-yo? Movie ticket-NOM have-E KACIKO today eventning-TEMP what do-CDINTR *‘Because I’ve got movie tickets, what are you doing this evening?’ As indicated above, utterance (56) is not acceptable in either Korean or English because the two clauses fail to construct any sematic relation that fulfills the common understanding. Even though we suppose that substantial pauses appear after e kaciko in (55), the utterance is still unacceptable unless another grammatical construction is inserted to repair the utterance to gain acceptability, such as the comment clause “I’m saying/asking that~.” That is, it is impossible to restore/reorder the construction by switching the given clauses themselves. Therefore, it can be said that utterance (55) is not an alternative form resulting from the inversion of the main and subordinate clauses because the two separate sentences comprise the speaker’s utterances, and in the second sentence e kaciko certainly plays a particular role in the interaction. A. Meaning negotiation Then, what competing motivations might the speaker have in mind? Since he gives up on being informative against Grice’s CP maxims, the rest of the work continues to be an inclusive 119 process by the cooperative interlocutor, who is invited to infer what the speaker intends to say. The interlocutor is required to restore the ‘unsaid’ main clause. Then, ironically enough, for what purpose does the speaker manage to leave the gist of his/ her utterance unrevealed instead of overtly saying it? Van Dijk (1977) points out that speech acts are in need of being approached at a more global level because we often perform speech acts such as accuse, warn, promise, and so forth throughout an entire discourse. Compare the utterance presented below with (55). (57) Yenghwaphyo-ka sayngkye-ss-nuntey onul cenyek-ey yenghwa po-le Movie tickets-NOM have-PAST-CONN today evening-TEMP movie see-in order to Ka-psita. Go-PROP: FD ‘I’ve got movie tickets, let’s go to the movies this evening’ Semantically speaking, utterance (57) is very much akin to (55). (57) differs from (55) in that the speaker of (57) utters a single sentence and therein she or he suggests an event straightforwardly. On the other hand, in (55) the speaker is not explicitly suggesting an event while she or he utters more than a single sentence. Then, how could the interlocutor possibly know what she or he suggests? According to Van Dijk (1977), conversation participants get to know ‘at a certain point (1977:108)’ what speech acts they are engaged in because there are generally constructed rules that we follow during discourse with respect to ‘the cognitive and social contexts of action planning and interpretation (1977:108).’ Van Dijk (1977)’s overall discussion accords with our approach to analyzing the pragmatic use of e kaciko in diverse discourses as we have discussed thus far. Now, we shall examine what kind of contexts and rules are related in performing this particular speech act, presented through (55). 120 From the interlocutor’s point of view, except for the case that she does not have native fluency in Korean and thereby has not yet acquired the pragmatic use of e kaciko or has limited understanding of social contexts, at a certain point she anticipates the realization that the speech act being performed in (55) is ‘requests.’ Now, the key point to track down here is entirely focused on the connective e kaciko in order to decode the schema of executing a request in causal contexts. As a matter of fact, in this context e kaciko implies multi-layered functions as it does in other contexts discussed in earlier sections. First of all, it subordinates the preceding clause in the causal relation, but the main clause is not followed in this case. Therefore, this use of causal e kaciko comprises a discourse different from the e kaciko that appears in other types of causal contexts: (a) expressing the speaker’s regret or pity toward a negative consequence (see Section 4.5.1) and (b) asking for the interlocutor’s understanding for the speaker’s mistakes (see Section 4.5.3). In the particular types of discourse shown in (55), e kaciko serves to provide the background reasons for suggesting or requesting an event. Therefore, utterance (55) achieves an interpretation as “I’m asking you what you’re doing this evening because I’ve got movie tickets and want to suggest that we go to the movies together.” As the lengthy interpretation suggests, e kaciko performs the given function very efficiently while conveying the pragmatic meaning of “I want to suggest that~” at the same time it is expressing the semantic meaning of “because.” 4.7.2 Making refusals The interlocutor can more actively perform against face-threatening acts in cases where she attempts to refuse the request. In this type of interaction the causal connective e kaciko is invoked and it operates as a speech act of refusals. Let us take a closer look at the example below. (58) A: Onul cenyek-ey swul han can ha-lkka-yo? 121 Today evening EMP alcohol one CL do-PROP-CDINTR Shall we go for a drink this evening? B1: Cha-lul kac-ko wa-ss-e Car-ACC have-CONN come-PAST-CPE ‘I drove my car’ B2: Cha-lul kac-ko wa-kaciko (...) Car-ACC have-CONN come-E KACIKO ‘Because I drove my car…’ In (58), the dialogue paired (58A-58B2) indicates that e kaciko can be used not only when requesting, asking a favor, and the like, but also when responding to those type of speech acts. In (58A) the speaker suggests that they go for a drink in the evening. In (58B1) the interlocutor responds to the request by simply providing the reason why she or he cannot go for a drink with the speaker today. 28 By contrast, in (58B2) the interlocutor responds more indirectly by using e kaciko. That is, the interlocutor is making an excuse for turning down the request by providing a plausible reason why he can’t drink today. A. Meaning negotiation Similar to the use of e kaciko in the request speech act as presented in (55A), e kaciko here is deployed to imply pragmatic meaning. Just as utterance (55A) does, the interlocutor in 28 Interestingly, there is still possibility to interpret (58B1) as being indirect as (58B2) if it is given in the particular context. That is, if the speaker of (58B1) is making an excuse for turning down the request by providing a plausible reason (because he drove his car today) why he can’t drink today (even though he is willing to go out with the speaker if he didn’t drove his car today). However, this response may remain considerably indirect as well as polite only in the contexts where she or he responds as (58B1) for the case that in fact he just simply does not want to go for a drink with the speaker. This sort of interpretation is as complex as it sounds because reality where we live in and circumstances where we are put are not simple at all. Therefore, discourse analysis requires more various types of contexts to achieve better results. However, here we do not discuss all the possibilities, but focus on the contexts where e kaciko appears to function as speech act tools. 122 (58B2) also produces her or his utterance incompletely, and thereby it is translated as “Because I drove my car today….” Hence, the speaker of (58A) is invited to infer what the ‘unsaid’ part implies thereafter. Including this example, corpus data indicates that when e kaciko appears in the position of response to requesting types of speech acts, the answers are given as a mean of refusing the request or declining the offer. Thereby, the speaker (58B2) is reluctant to say “I can’t” in the missing main clause, because of an intention to avoid having the impudence to refuse the proposal. Ironically, some insufficiency achieved by providing less information signals more information in terms of the speaker’s attitude toward the interlocutor. 4.7.3 Facework and politeness The speaker’s attitude is expressed by e kaciko as well as by slurring the end of the sentence after saying e kaciko. This signals the speaker’s cautious attitude toward the addressee and therefore the request or refusal is made in an indirect and implicit way. Speaking of speech acts of request using e kaciko, it may possibly also give an impression to the interlocutor that the speaker is glazing over the reason why she or he is asking the interlocutor to go see the movie together, such as “I don’t necessarily mean to ask YOU, but I happen to have tickets, so if you’re free this evening by any chance, why don’t we go to the movies?” Here, the use of e kaciko is related with facework. In specific, e kaciko prevents face-threatening acts that will possibly apply to both the speaker and the addressee. For the speaker’s sake, e kaciko functions to save the speaker’s positive face. That is, owing to the implication of e kaciko, the speaker becomes released from the chance that he had to explicitly request an event such as “let’s go to the movies” and so forth, but after a while it turned into futile conversation when the interlocutor refuses. Interestingly, here the preventive facework also works for the interlocutor to mitigate the threatening acts. The request bids to threaten the addressee’s negative face by feeling discomfort, awkwardness, etc., once she refuses to comply with the speaker’s request. However, the speaker’s 123 request is made in a subtle way and thus the interlocutor is able to feel less of an obligation or burden to comply with it. Due to the strands of pragmatic nuances that e kaciko implies in request contexts, the speaker becomes able to fault Grice’s maxims and save both his and her faces, which is a method of maintaining a good self-image. Similarly, in the case of performing speech acts of refusal using e kaciko, this type of response can be regarded as an “indirect and thus polite way of refusal” instead of offering the refusal in an indeed straightforward way. If the interlocutor chooses “I drove my car” as in (58B1) over “I drove my car- E KACIKO” as in (58B2), both faces of the interlocutor him/herself and the speaker become threatened based on similar logic to that discussed for the politeness strategies of e kaciko in requesting contexts. The only difference is that here the facework is performed to restore (not prevent) the “requester’s” face that is inevitably lost. In addition, e kaciko functions to reduce the level of threatening acts toward the “requester” who originally requests an act, who has face to get inevitably threatened by being rejected or refused, and thus is anticipated to feel humiliation, embarrassment, awkwardness, etc., to some degree. So far, we have examined discourses where the speech acts, requests, and refusals are performed, and we have discussed how e kaciko functions in such situations. The interactions we examined are highly interactive and indeed carry a perlocutionary effect inevitably because the speech acts invariably elicit responses. These are very common speech acts in our daily lives and thus the use of e kaciko enables us to participate in communication and social interaction more smoothly in terms that e kaciko functions to reduce friction that might be caused within interpersonal relations. In this regard, we may sense that this particular type of discourse is highly interactive, which relies on the speaker-interlocutor interaction even more greatly, and therein e kaciko performs a key role. With respect to all the possible varieties of actual discourses, more than one speech act may appear in the same conversation, even it is a short one. Let us give an example with e kaciko. 124 (59) A: Onul cenyek-ey mwe hay-yo? Yenghwaphyo-ka sayngkye kaciko (...) Today evening-TEMP what do-CDINRT movie ticket-NOM have-E KACIKO ‘What are you doing this evening? Because I’ve got movie tickets…’ B: Cha-lul kac-ko wa kaciko (...) Car-ACC have-CONN come-E KACIKO ‘Because I drove my car…’ In (59) both the speaker and the interlocutor use the causal connective e kaciko and slur the end of their speech when they perform the speech acts of requests--refusals in the same discourse. This discourse signals that both participants are being very cautious, indirect, and implicit, and that they are trying their best to save their own and each other’s faces at the same time. These two speakers’ attitudes can be decoded as being reluctant to cause any social and interpersonal infractions in an efficient way by employing e kaciko. Thus, they are very much like pragmatic- minded speakers. 4.8 Summary In this chapter, we examined formal and informal texts collected from the Sejong Corpus: Present Day Spoken Korean and web-based texts including mass media broadcasts, focusing on the emergence of the connective e kaciko. Results showed that the grammatical construction e kaciko turns out to have diverse applications across various discourses. Although e kaciko is exceedingly frequent in more informal and intimately constructed discourses, it is also distributed in formal discourses. Therefore, we attained results from the corpus data indicating that the occurrence of e kaciko contributes a colloquial and impromptu voice to formal speech; in particular, e kaciko is attached to the formulaic expressions such as ~ey tayhay ‘about,’ ~lul thonghay ‘through,’ and so forth, although e kaciko is not required in such constructions. 125 Thereafter, we examined informal discourses. In section 4.4 we elucidated two types of usages of e kaciko conveyed in sequential contexts. The first type occurred when e kaciko comprised a composite verb construction viz. ‘Verb 1 – e kaciko – Verb 2,’ and covered three different functions: 1) ‘Verb 1 and then Verb 2’ 2) ‘by having the result of Verb 1, Verb 2’ 3) ‘by means of Verb 1, Verb 2.’ The second type of e kaciko usage in sequential contexts was found when the speaker expresses her or his personal associations or attitudes toward what is said or to the addressee. These sequential contexts mostly concerned troublesome situations. The example discourses found in the data demonstrated that the speaker intended to emphasize how she or he was associated with ‘what is being said’ while describing the sequential relationship. In the subsequent sections the deployment of e kaciko in causal, adversative, and conditional contexts was used to express the speaker’s stance. In Section 4.5 we discussed how the causative connective e kaciko is used in discourses where the speaker intends to invite the interlocutor to feel empathy with the situation in which the speaker strongly feels resentment. The resentment in some discourses is addressed toward the interlocutor or an absent 3 rd party, or even the speaker him/herself. Therefore, the discourses function as ‘socializing practices’ by making mockeries of the situation, etc. This pragmatic function of e kaciko was construed as social acts in conversation to establish solidarity between the participants; this was particular the case for discourses about an absent 3 rd party. In addition, we also analyzed discourses where e kaciko was used as a speech act tool in causal contexts. First, e kaciko appears when the speaker has made a mistake and is thus asking for the interlocutor’s understanding. The speaker expresses an apology more or less as a way to be ‘excused for the troubles caused,’ or as a way of ‘asking for forgiveness.’ In discourses whereby e kaciko signaled an attempt to mitigate a troublesome situation, we also discussed how pragmatic devices are actively used, including self-repair, pauses, repetition, and silence, etc. Because offering an apology is actually a very frequent speech act, e kaciko was often found in the following fixed sequence: acknowledgment (what trouble is caused by the speaker) – E KACIKO – “I’m sorry.” Given that the speaker caused the apologetic 126 situation, the discussion on these discourses also touched on pragmatic issues such as facework and politeness, etc. In Section 4.6, we examined discourses in which e kaciko expresses the speaker’s stance with respect to counter-expectations in adversative and conditional contexts. In adversative contexts, the speaker learned something contradictory about the addressee in terms of the addressee’s appearance, personality, or qualifications. We also discussed how the use of e kaciko reflects the interpersonal relationships between participants in that the utterer of e kaciko in these types of contexts mostly tends to be the socially senior interlocutor as long as the participants are complying with socioculturally schematized knowledge and norms, etc. E kaciko also deals with counter-expectations in conditional contexts. We delved into the pragmatic use of e kaciko when it expresses the speaker’s stance toward problematic situations. Specifically, e kaciko was found in schematized discourse patterns: (a) posing a problematic issue and (b) projecting the speaker’s opinion on the issue, in that order. In such discourses, the conditional connective e kaciko functioned to actively invite the interlocutor to construe a series of possible inferences. The interlocutor anticipated inferring the pragmatic meanings and receiving advice about remedying wrongdoing or the given problematic situation. In some discourses where a rhetorical interrogative form was used, e kaciko may deliver a stronger, or even forceful, message that contains the speaker’s attitude toward the addressee. Therefore, the speaker’s cynical or doubtful attitude might be perceived, and thus this use of e kaciko also was found to be limited to socially senior speakers when speaking to younger or socially inferior interlocutors, and not vice versa; this usage is similar to that found of e kaciko in adversative contexts. The discussion on facework and politeness continued in chapter 4.7. E kaciko was frequently used in discourses where requests and refusals were practiced, which were regarded here as other obvious face-threatening acts. More interestingly, in both contexts of making requests and refusals, e kaciko was not followed by the main clause, unlike other usages of e kaciko that we have discussed in the earlier sections. In contexts in which e kaciko participated in 127 constructing a speech act of request, e kaciko implied that ‘I’m asking you ~ because I want to suggest that~.’ In such discourses, e kaciko not only indicated the semantic relation of ‘because,’ but also conveyed the requesting context. Similarly, e kaciko was also used when the speaker refused a request in the form of ‘because (of a specific reason), I can’t~.’ Owing to the pragmatic meaning of e kaciko, the speaker was able to perform the speech act of refusal without the risk of having the impudence to directly refuse the proposal. E kaciko thus functions to reduce the level of threatening acts, and in such cases facework is applied to not only the speaker in each speech act, but also the interlocutor. Overall, the connective e kaciko was found to demonstrate pragmatic meanings that enable speakers to participate in communication and social actions more smoothly and effectively with diverse applications. In other words, we have analyzed discourses in which various speech acts, such as apologizing, advising, complaining, projecting opinions, requesting, and refusing were performed whereby e kaciko performed a key facet. The discourses in which e kaciko was used were mostly constructed in negative contexts, and the speaker expressed her or his stance toward the given context, or to the addressee. More intriguingly, in some discourses e kaciko was employed with the intention to be polite, indirect, or even cautious; on the other hand, e kaciko also appeared when the speaker displayed her or his negative stance or opinions, etc., expressively or, sometimes, even rather boldly. Because e kaciko is often used to express the speaker’s stance, sociocultural schemata are also associated with the process of discourse. By the same token, the pragmatic meaning of e kaciko appears to have acquired subjectivity and intersubjectivity, which strongly indicates that the grammatical construction e kaciko has been undergoing the process of grammaticalization, along with its multifold functions, which are not limited to those as a connective. More strikingly, the connective e kaciko went through further grammaticalization to also function as a SCE. We will discuss the SCE uses of e kaciko in Chapter 6. Before delving into the SCE uses of e kaciko, 128 however, we shall first discuss e kaciko in comparison with the connective ese, with a focus on their distributional use in discourse. 129 CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION II: COMPARING DISCOURSES IN WHICH E KACIKO AND ESE APPEAR 5.1 Introduction As discussed in the previous chapter, e kaciko as a connective functions to connect two clauses to indicate sequential, causal, adversative, and conditional relationships. In this regard, from the semantic approach e kaciko can presumably be substituted by the connectives ese, nuntey, and myen because they are considered to be representative connectives that express the meaning of ‘and then/ because,’ ‘but,’ and ‘if,’ respectively. However, morphosyntatically, the grammatical slot where e kaciko appears can be filled particularly with the connective ese without any grammatical restrictions. Despite this interchangeability, however, ese functions differently from the connective e kaciko in discourse. In other words, ese and e kaciko tend to occur in particular discourse contexts respectively, thus establishing their unique pragmatic accounts and giving rise to further discussion on the connective ese. Therefore, in this chapter we attempt to further discuss the usage of the connective e kaciko in comparison to the connective ese to reveal their differences in terms of their distributions across contexts. The results will show why the connective ese is less likely to occur in contexts in which e kaciko appears, and thereby the pragmatic properties of e kaciko that we have examined in the previous chapter will be further elucidated. 130 5.2 Understanding of the connective ese Although earlier studies of ese have yielded abundant research outcomes mainly focusing on its sequential and causal uses, in the current corpus data we identified more specified uses of ese in both spoken and written Korean discourse. The emergence of ese in written discourse characterizes its prominent properties in comparison with the connective e kaciko, given that e kaciko exclusively appears in spoken discourse. The following examples excerpted from the Sejong Corpus present some of the various contexts in which ese is used. (60) a. 2 tung kayksi-lul yeyyakhay-ss-ciman nemwu picop-ko tewe-se 2 nd class cabin-ACC book-PAST-CONN too cramped-CONN hot ESE Pay-uy mayn wi-lo ka-ss-ta. Boat-GEN the very top-DIR go-PAST-WE ‘Although we booked our seats in the 2 nd class cabin, we went to the top of the boat because it was too cramped and hot.’ Sejong Corpus 2BA93A22 b. Capain-uy mincok uysik koyang-kwa kyoyuk-uy pokup-ey Javanese-GEN ethnic awareness boost-and education-GEN dissemination-DIR Konghenha-yess-una kyelhon hwu chwulsan hwuyucung-ulo celm-ese contribute to-PAST-CONN marriage after childbirth aftereffects-INS young-ESE yocelhaye-ss-ta die young-PAST-WE ‘She contributed to raising ethnic awareness of Javanese and dissemination of education (in Java), but she died of birth complications at an early age after marriage.’ Sejong Corpus 2BH9459 131 c. Pantusi anc-ase mom-ul wialaylo wumciky-e po-n hwu kwuipha-tolok ha-nta. Surely sit-ESE body-ACC up and down move-try to after purchase-CONN do-WE ‘(When purchasing a sofa), you must purchase it only after sitting on it and moving your body up and down.’ Sejong Corpus 2BA93A22 d. Wuli-nun nalmata ilccik ilena-se achim wuntong-ul hay-a ha-nta. We-NOM everyday early get up-ESE morning exercise-ACC do-should-WE ‘Every day we should get up early and do morning exercises.’ Sejong Corpus 2CC00063 The utterances in (60a ~ d) include the connective ese linking two clauses, but each use of ese is different. The connective ese in (60a) links the two clauses in a causal relationship. Ese in (60b) is used to describe the background information as “the time she died was when she was young.” Therefore, “celm ese yocelha yess ta” can be paraphrased as follows: (61) celm-ess-ul ttay yocelhay-ess-ta Young-PAST when die young-PAST-WE ‘She died when she was young’ As elaborated in sentence (61), the semantic relationship of ‘young’ and ‘die’ is not interpreted as a sequential order. The clause ‘she was young + ese’ is provided as a temporal background for the action ‘to die’ in the subsequent clause. In (60c), ese is also used to connect two actions, ‘to sit’ and ‘to move.’ In addition to the sequential relationship of the two actions, the first, ‘to sit,’ remains effective and is connected to the concatenating action ‘to move.’ Therefore, ‘anc + ase’ is interpreted as ‘to move while being 132 seated,’ rather than ‘to sit and then move.’ Here, ese functions to indicate the way or means to carry out the following action as well. Ese in (60d) is used to provide the sequential order of two actions, ‘to get up’ and ‘to exercise,’ which can be translated as ‘and then’ in English. In sum, all the uses of ese in (60) fundamentally indicate that the events described in the preceding clauses occur prior to the events presented in the subsequent clauses. In addition, the occurrence of the two events is often cascading in terms of their temporal or logical relationships. I will now review how the connective ese has been discussed in the literature prior to examining it with particular reference to e kaciko, and then compare their usages. 5.3 Previous accounts of ese The connective ese has been one of the most popular targets of study among Korean linguists and language educators, mainly being discussed in terms of its causal and sequential uses. Meanwhile, the use of ese has been neglected with reference to its occurrence in both adversative and conditional contexts. 5.3.1 Ese as a causal connective Among studies on Korean connectives, the causal connective ese is one of the most frequently investigated, along with the causal connective nikka (Choi, 1961; Kim, 1981, 1984; S. Lee, 1978; Nam, 1978; Lee, 1978; Nam and Lukoff, 1983; Seo, 1990; Seong, 1993, among others). These studies were conducted primarily to reveal the differences between these two connectives; specifically, the main concern was to compare them with respect to their morphosyntactic and semantic properties to show their similarities and differences. As a result, researchers have made many claims and suggestions concerning the morphosyntactic restrictions 133 and semantic differences between ese and nikka. Their discussion of the morphosyntactic restrictions reveals points of concord between the two connectives, whereas the discussion of their distinctive semantic usages reveals points of difference. Although we will take only ese into account in our current discussion in order to compare it with e kaciko, here we take a look at how ese is compared with nikka in the literature. Drawing upon previous studies, I shall discuss the properties of ese and nikka as causal connectives which express the meaning of because. Then, while reviewing previous discussions of ese and nikka, e kaciko will be examined when necessary. Let us first review the morphosyntactic properties of the two connectives. Researchers have attempted to characterize the morphosyntactic properties of ese and nikka, and their results can be tabulated as follows: Table 5. Restrictions of sentence-concluding endings for ese and nikka main clauses. Restrictions of SCEs in the main clause Ese Nikka Nam & Lukoff (1983) + - Lee (1981) + - Yun (1992) + - Seo (1990, 1996) + - Seong (1993) + - Lee & Chae (1999) + - In the above table, (-) denotes ‘no restriction,’ while restrictive conditions are marked as (+). The most prominent morphosyntactic qualification is that ese and nikka mark a difference with respect to the main clause. Observe the following: 134 (62) a. Pi-ka manhi wa-*se/ nikka cip-ulo ka-lkka? Rain-NOM much come-ESE NIKKA home-DIR go-PROP:CP ‘Because it’s raining heavily, shall we go home?’ b. Pi-ka manhi wa-*se/ nikka cip-ulo ka-la. Rain-NOM much come-ESE NIKKA home-DIR go-IMP:CP ‘Because it’s raining heavily, go home.’ c. Pi-ka manhi wa-*se/ nikka cip-ulo ka-ca. Rain-NOM much come-ESE/ NIKKA home-DIR go-PROP:CP ‘Because it’s raining heavily, let’s go home.’ As shown in (62), ese cannot be followed by a clause containing a suggestion, command, or proposal, whereas nikka does not have such a restriction. Interestingly, in these cases e kaciko behaves identically to ese. (63) a. *Pi-ka manhi wa kaciko cip-ulo ka-lkka? Rain-NOM much come-E KACIKO home-DIR go-PROP:CP ‘It’s raining heavily. So, shall we go home?’ b. *Pi-ka manhi wa kaciko cip-ulo ka-la. Rain-NOM much come-E KACIKO home-DIR go-IMP:CP ‘It’s raining heavily. So, go home.’ c. *Pi-ka manhi wa kaciko cip-ulo ka-ca. Rain-NOM much come-E KACIKO home-DIR go-PROP:CP ‘Because it’s raining heavily, let’s go home.’ Table 6 shows that ese has a restriction that prevents it from combining with the past tense 135 marker ess or the marker expressing presumption, keyss. Table 6. Restrictions of non-final endings in the main clause of ese and nikka sentences. Restrictions of non-final endings in the main clause Ese Nikka Nam & Lukoff (1983) + - Lee (1981) + - Yun (1992) + - Seo (1990, 1996) + - Seong (1993) + - Lee & Chae (1999) + - See the following example of a case with the past tense marker ess: (64) Onul pi-ka manhi wa-ss-*ese/ unikka/*e kaciko nayil Today rain-NOM much come-PAST-ESE NIKKA-E KACIKO tomorrow Nalssi-ka chwup-kess-e. Weather-NOM cold-SUP-CPE ‘Because it rained a lot today, it will be cold tomorrow.’ As discussed by researchers and noted in Table 6, unlike nikka, ese cannot be combined with the past tense marker ess even though the clause refers to an event in the past. The causal connective e kaciko also expresses past tense even without the use of the past tense marker. The examples in (63) and (64) clearly show that e kaciko has the same morphosyntactic restrictions as ese, but not nikka. 136 As for the presumptive marker keyss, according to standard grammar and a large majority of previous studies on the topic of ese and nikka, ese is considered to not be allowed to follow keyss, as shown in Table 6. This restriction is identically applied to the connective e kaciko as well. Observe the following: (65) Nay-ka wuncen-ul mos ha-keyss-*ese/ *e kaciko/ unikka con-hanthey I-NOM driving-ACC NEG do-KEYSS ESE E KACIKO NIKKA John-DAT Pwutakha-n ke-cyo. ask a favor-NOMZ-CDE ‘Because I didn’t think I could drive, I asked John [to do it].’ In (6), neither ese nor e kaciko show any acceptableness or naturalness in terms of its use with the modal particle keyss, whereas the connective nikka is not restricted. As shown thus far, the uses of ese and nikka can be clearly distinguished according to their morphosyntactic restrictions. We also saw that e kaciko is more akin to ese with reference to its morphosyntactic properties and restrictions; these similarities are likely the result of their morphological closeness and relevance acquired as a result of historical language change over time. Nonetheless, I shall not include such a discussion on diachronic data in the current dissertation. Let us now consider ese/nikka and e kaciko with respect to their semantic properties. With regard to the semantic properties of ese and nikka, there have been many attempts to make a distinction between them. However, any semantic differences they may have seem less clear than their morphosyntactic differences, and previous attempts to define their respective meanings have not been satisfactory. Hence, debate has continued with respect to defining the semantic properties of ese and nikka. Existing discussions of their semantic properties can be classified into two main views. 137 The major studies dealing with ese and nikka account for them in logical terms such as ‘cause’ and ‘reason,’ respectively. According to Nam and Lukoff (1983), ese indicates an ‘assertion of cause,’ whereas nikka is used for ‘argumentation.’ That is, ese is used for situations in which the speaker assumes a logical relation of cause and effect that is understandable to anyone. However, nikka utterances do not necessarily have to accord with objective or reasonable grounds. In the same vein, Yun (1992) and Lee and Chae (1999) state that ese is attached to clauses which describe universal, objective, and common knowledge, whereas nikka clauses refer to personally assumed reasons which are subjective. Lee (2005) also reports that while ese is an expression of an inevitable relationship, nikka indicates a less inevitable reason. Seong (1993), on the other hand, provides counterexamples to the discussion that ese is used to refer to ‘cause,’ whereas nikka indicates ‘reason’: (66) a. Ce salam-un sengkyek-i com mwull-ese sengkongha-ki That person-NOM personality-NOM a little soft-ESE succeed-NOMZ Elyewu-l ke-ya. Difficult-SUP-CPE ‘I don’t think he will succeed because his personality is indecisive.’ b. Chelswu-nun swuhak-eyse 0 cem-ul mac-ass-unikka hapkyek-ul Cheolsu NOM math-SOC zero score-ACC get-PAST-NIKKA pass-ACC mos hay-ss-e. NEG do-PAST-CPE ‘Because he got a zero on his math exam, he failed (the test).’ In (66a), according to Seong (1993), the speaker assumes the consequence based on his own inference, whereas in (66b) the nikka clause indicates a logical conclusion for the subsequent 138 clause. The use of ese and nikka would have to be reversed to conform to the claims of Nam and Lukoff (1983). However, when we switch nikka and ese in (66a) and (66b), respectively, the utterances are still acceptable. Hence, while distinguishing these two causal connectives based on the definition of ese and nikka as referring to ‘cause’ and ‘reason,’ respectively, may be plausible to some extent, this account is inadequate if we are to encompass the wide range of ese and nikka instances that are considered acceptable. Yun (1992) examines the differences between the two connectives by considering the listener’s status. Yun claims that ese is suitable for situations in which the listener is unaware of the given event or situation expressed in the preceding clause, whereas nikka is used when the listener is assumed to know about the given event or situation. Therefore, in ese sentences the preceding clause which includes unknown, or new, information receives a focus, whereas nikka sentences have a focus on the subsequent clause. Let us see if this argument is plausible: (67) A: Ecey hakkyo-ey way an wa-ss-e? Yesterday school-LOC why NEG come-PAST-CPINTR ‘Why did (you) not come to school yesterday?’ B1: Aph-ase mos ka-ss-e. Sick-ESE NEG go-PAST-CPE B2: ? Aph-unikka mos ka-ss-e. Sick-NIKKA NEG go-PAST-CPE B3: Aph-unikka mos ka-ss-ci. Sick-NIKKA NEG go-PAST-CPE ‘I couldn’t come because I was sick.’ 139 As answers to the question given in (67A), (67B1) and (67B3) are natural, whereas (67B2), which indicates the reason with nikka, is less likely to be uttered. Based on the claims of Yun (1992), the ese clause in (67B1) explains the reason why he could not come to school yesterday to the person of (67A) by assuming that (s)he did not previously know about the reason; that is, the reason is assumed to be new information. The answer in (67B3), on the other hand, is made in a situation in which the person speaking assumes that the speaker of (67A) asks him/her about the reason despite already being aware of it; similarly, the speaker of (67B3) feels justified using the reason being given, in the sense of ‘How would I possibly come to school despite being sick?!’ Note that the only difference between (67B2) and (67B3) is the use of a sentence-concluding ending. The ending ci used in (67B3) is known as a marker that indicates the speaker’s confidence about what is being said, which is shared knowledge, or that the statement should be plausible regardless of whether the hearer agrees or not. In this regard, nikka and the ending ci in (67B3) agree well in terms of delivering the message of ‘I couldn’t come because I was sick.’ From this observation, it starts to become clear that ese and nikka must be considered together with the other words in the sentence, that is, it is necessary to observe how all the words are connected as well as the context in which they appear. 5.3.2 Ese as a sequential connective Despite the fact that the connective ese indicates that the semantic relationship between two clauses is sequential or causal, the sequential use of ese has attracted relatively little attention from researchers compared to the causal use of ese. Let us now see how ese is discussed in the Korean linguistics literature and compare it with the causal use of e kaciko in discourse. Previous accounts of the sequential connective ese mostly concern its semantic properties and comprise two strands of discussion. First, the content of the preceding clause is considered to 140 be a premise for the subsequent content that emerges in the following clause. In addition, in particular both clauses contain an action verb, and the action of the following clause tends to indicate the purpose of the action of the preceding clause (Jeon, 1989:60; Lee & Lee, 2001:659; Lee, 2004:82; among many others). Second, Choi (1989:163), Hahn et al. (2005:433), Heo et al. (2005:300) discuss the semantic relation between the two clauses of ese sentences in terms of the contents of the clauses being relevant to each other and thus closely interrelated. Because of this close interrelation between the two actions in the clauses, the sequential relations are often also considered to be causal relations. As is widely discussed in most studies concerning the connective ese, the sequential connective ese is known to have a same-subject restriction. See the following instances. (68) a. Ce-nun achim 10 si-ccum ilena-ase (ce-nun) khephi-lul masye-ss-eyo. I-NOM morning 10 CL-about get up-ESE I-NOM coffee-ACC drink-PAST-CDE ‘I got up at around 10 o’clock in the morning and then drank coffee.’ b.* Ce-nun achim 10 si-ccum ilena-ase apeci-nun khephi-lul I-NOM morning 10 CL-about get up-ESE father-NOM coffee-ACC masye-ss-eyo. drink-PAST-CDE ‘I got up at around 10 o’clock in the morning, and then my father drank coffee.’ c. Ce-ka achim 10 si-ccum ilena-ase apeci-nun khephi-lul masye-ss-eyo. I-NOM morning 10 CL-about get up-ESE father-NOM coffee-ACC drink-PAST-CDE ‘Because I got up at around 10 o’clock in the morning, my father drank coffee.’ ((When I get up later than 10 o’clock in the morning, I do not have time to make coffee for my father.)) 141 In (68a) the subject ‘I’ appears in both the preceding and the following clauses, whereas in (68b) two different subjects, ‘I’ and ‘father’ are used, forming an ungrammatical sentence. These two examples are in accordance with the general argument made in the literature. Although sentence (68c) includes the connective ese, non-identical subjects are used. Here, ese does not function as a sequential connective, but as a causative connective. Another morphosyntactic property of ese denoting the sequential semantic relation is that the sequential connective ese clause does not allow the occurrence of tense, aspect, or modal expressions. See below. (69) *C-nun achim 10 si-ccum ilena-ss-ese (ce-nun) khephi-lul I-NOM morning 10 CL about get up-PAST-ESE I-NOM coffee-ACC Masye-ss-eyo Drink-PAST-CDE ‘I got up at around 10 o’clock in the morning and then drank coffee’ As indicated in (69), even though ‘I got up at around 10 o’clock in the morning’ is a past event, the preceding clause of the ese sentence does not allow the use of a past tense morpheme. Instead, tense is marked by the predicate in the following clause, as shown in (68a). (70) A: Onul ithallia siktang-ey ka-se phasutha meku lkka? Today Italy restaurant-DIR go-ESE pasta eat-PROP:CP ‘Shall we go to the Italian restaurant and eat pasta?’ B: Kunyang cip-ey ka-se pap ha y-cwu-lkey Just home-DIR go-ESE meal do-do a favor-PRMS:CP ‘Let’s just go home and let me cook for you.’ 142 The brief dialogue in (70) shows that the connective ese allows suggestion, or propositional, utterances in the following clause. In addition, diverse speech acts such as commands, invitations, or requests can also be expressed in the subsequent clause. 29 5.4 Discussion Thus far, we have seen that ese and e kaciko have identical properties in terms of their grammatical restrictions. As a matter of fact, e kaciko can be replaced by the connective ese to link the two clauses while still indicating both causal and sequential relationships. From the sematic perspective, the utterances are identical regardless of whether they use ese or e kaciko. However, despite this semantic overlapping, from the pragmatic perspective they certainly tend to show different distributions across discourses. For this reason, in this section I will also discuss the uses of ese in extended discourses in which it may occur as a compatible connective in both adversative and conditional contexts. 5.4.1 Discourse and register Unlike e kaciko, ese is not confined to spoken discourse. It is also frequently used in written discourse, such as newspaper articles, books, and the like. Oh (2005:469-488) examines ese using the Sejong Corpus and reveals that the major function of ese is found in the content level in both spoken and written registers. Here, ‘content level’ (from Sweetser’s (1990) ‘three- level semantic approach) is a term used in contrast to the ‘epistemic level’ and ‘speech act level.’ 29 The sequential ese is allowed with these speech acts only with particular types of verbs in the preceding clause, such as kata ‘to go,’ ota ‘to come,’ mannata ‘to meet,’ illenata ‘to get up; to stand up,’ and the like. 143 That is, the interpretation of a sentence linked by ese can be achieved from the given statements and their semantic relationships (such as causal) at the ‘content level.’ The relationship between the preceding and subsequent clauses linked by ese is indeed straightforward and literal; thus the reader of the sentence does not need to rely on any other contextual factors. With the ‘three-level approach,’ Sweetser (1990) tries to demonstrate how the meanings of connectives can be ambiguous. See the following: … a conjunction may be interpreted as applying in one of (at last) three domains where the choice of a “correct” interpretation depends not on form, but on a pragmatically motivated choice between viewing the conjoined clauses as representing content units, logical entities, or speech acts (Sweetser, 1990:78). The explanation of the three-level approach is fairly straightforward, and the following examples from Sweetser (1990) help us have an even clearer understanding. (71) a. John came back because he loved her. (content level) b. John loved her, because he came back. (epistemic level) c. What are you doing tonight, because there’s a good movie on. (speech act level) In (71a), the relationship between the preceding and following clauses is factual, that is, cause- effect. Interpreting (71b) requires a somewhat different; the reader is able to arrive at the conclusion “John loved her” given the fact that “he came back.” There is an assumption in this process, which is “John wouldn’t come back if he didn’t love her.” In (71c), however, the ‘because’ clause functions to provide a reason for performing the speech act of making a suggestion. 144 In this regard, the connective e kaciko is more likely to achieve a proper interpretation in either the epistemic or speech act level by taking into account pragmatic accounts. In fact, corpus data reveals that the connective e kaciko establishes more distinctive discourses to some extent. The following figure summarizes the distribution of e kaciko in Korean discourse. Figure 5. Distribution of e kaciko in contemporary Korean discourse Written least likely Spoken Formal Informal Positive Negative most likely Figure 3 shows that the connective e kaciko is prone to appear least likely in written discourses and most likely in informal, negative context spoken discourses. First, unlike ese, e kaciko exclusively appears in spoken discourse; in written discourse, tokens of e kaciko are only found in directly quoted conversations and speeches, which are obviously examples of spoken language use. Second, as elucidated in Section 5.2.1, e kaciko is 2.5 times more frequently used in formal than informal contexts. Moreover, as discussed in Section 5.3, uses of e kaciko in formal contexts evidently indicate the speaker’s intention to ‘deformalize the tone of discourse’ in formal settings. Third, as we examined thus far, e kaciko shows a strong tendency to mainly occurs in negative contexts as a means of “expressing the speaker’s regret or pity toward a negative consequence in causal contexts” (Section 5.5), “projecting the speaker’s judgement outward to the addressee in contexts where counter-expectations are met” (Section 5.6), and “mitigating face-threatening acts in causal contexts: (a) when asking for the interlocutor’s understanding, and (b) when making 145 requests or refusals in causal contexts” (Section 5.7). Let us discuss this in more detail in the next section. 5.4.2 Pragmatic use of e kaciko when expressing the speaker ’s attitude toward the given situation Even within spoken discourse e kaciko is less likely to occur in both formal contexts and positive contexts (See Figure 3). Nonetheless, we have observed that e kaciko does appear in some formal and positive contexts. For example, when e kaciko functions to indicate a sequential relation, it is often employed by the speaker to lower the formality of formal contexts such as public speeches, lecturers, etc. In a similar sense, the pragmatic nature of e kaciko more saliently emerges when the speaker attempts to emphasize personal involvement with surrounding contexts that concern troublesome situations, as we examined in Section 4.4.2; let us revisit the example from that section. (72) Han si-nka yeltwu si ta tway kaciko cenhwa-ka wa-ss-tela. 1 CL-or 12 CL almost become-E KACIKO call-NOM come-PAST-RPT Saypyek-ey cenhwa (@@) wa kaciko (…) Dawn-TEMP call come-E KACIKO ‘He called me at 1 a.m. or almost 12 a.m. I got a phone call (laugh) at dawn and then…’ E kaciko usage in such sequential contexts is frequently found when the speaker is expressing his/her personal association or attitude toward what is being said. If e kaciko is deployed in a clause in which a temporal expression is made, e kaciko carries the speaker’s intention of 146 emphasizing the time as being either too early or too late. The correct interpretation can thus be acquired through the particular context. As shown in (72), the speaker repeatedly tries to emphasize how late the phone call was. In addition, the discourse illustrates that the speaker anticipates that the interlocutor will agree with him/her or show empathy for the given situation and the speaker. Therefore, the participant becomes involved in meaning negotiation by using e kaciko. (73) a. Yenlak-ul ppallippalli tollye-ya toy-nuntey nemwu an tolli-tela. Contact-ACC quickly circulate-have to-CONN too NEG circulate-RPT:CP Onul-to nay-ka (::) yenlakhay-ss-e. Kes-twu yeses si mak ta Today-also I-NOM contact-PAST-CPE the thing-also 6 CL very almost Tway kacko. Become-E KACIKO ‘She has to circulate phone calls promptly but she doesn’t. Even today I called (everyone on her behalf). It was almost 6 o’clock indeed.’ Sejong Corpus 4CM00034 b. Tases pyeng-ccay-ya, tases pyeng-ccay. Ilkop si-pwuthe masye kacikwu mal-ya (…) 5 CL- th -CPD 5 CL- th 7 CL-from drink E KACIKO saying-CPE ‘It is the 5 th bottle, the 5 th bottle. She has been drinking since 7 o’clock, you know…’ Sejong Corpus 4CM00089 Two temporal expressions are used with the sequential connective e kaciko in (73): 6 o’clock in (73a) and 7 o’clock in (73b). Even without knowing the surrounding contexts, common knowledge tells us that 6 o’clock is obviously earlier than 7 o’clock. However, in (73) e kaciko carries the speaker’s intention in relation to uttering these time expressions. That is, in (73a) the 147 speaker emphasizes the time of 6 o’clock as being ‘too late’ to circulate the phone calls to everyone, whereas in (73b) the speaker tries to imply that 7 o’clock is ‘too early’ to start drinking. In this way, the different contexts allow e kaciko to effectively perform the respective pragmatic functions in addition to the semantic functions. We may conclude that e kaciko is confined to colloquial discourses, whereas ese is widely distributed in both written and spoken discourses, including not only formal but also informal spoken discourses. In rather informal and colloquial contexts, e kaciko functions to deliver the speaker’s attitude toward the content, or ‘what is being said’ with respect to emphasizing the semantic relation or the fact, for example, that some moment in time is either ‘too’ late or ‘too’ early. Because such a meaning is context-induced, the interlocutor is required to decode the use of e kaciko in accordance with the given context. 5.4.3 Pragmatic use of e kaciko when expressing the speaker ’s attitude toward the interlocutor The connective e kaciko seems to appear more in contexts in which the speaker intends to express his or her personal attitude toward the content of the utterance, such as a feeling or opinion as explicated with the numerous examples we examined in Chapter 5. In other words, e kaciko implies the speaker’s intention and is purposefully employed when speaking of the speaker’s situation, and the like. Let us now consider utterances that express the speaker’s intention through the use of e kaciko: (74) a. Cincca ce-nun nem nuc-e kaciko an o-lyeko kuley-ss-eyo Truly I-NOM too late-E KACIKO NEG come-intend to do so-PAST-CDE ‘[Please understand that] Truly, I didn’t want to come because it was too late.’ 148 b. Nemwu manhun mwul-i naylyewa kaciko ilpwu yusilitway-ss-supnita Too much water-NOM come down-E KACIKO part washed away-PAST-FDE ‘[It is a pity that] Since too much water came down, some parts of the land were washed away.’ As shown in (74), when indicating causality, e kaciko can express two different pragmatic meanings, i.e., ‘please understand that ~’ and ‘it is a pity that ~.’ These different meanings are achieved from various contexts, such as when the speaker wishes to excuse his wrongdoings, when the speaker expresses his perception of a blameful situation, or when the speaker makes an assertion about a given situation. All of these pragmatic meanings are achieved from the original intention of emphasizing a causal relationship. For example, in (74a) the speaker emphasizes the causal relationship that the ‘time was too late,’ which caused him to consider ‘not visiting (her).’ He thereby tries to defend his position and ask the interlocutor for his or her understanding. In (74b), the speaker expresses her pitiful attitude toward the situation, being struck by a natural disaster while describing the cause-effect relationship. That is, the primary function of the connective e kaciko is to practice a speech act with the additional intent of emphasizing, clarifying, or mitigating a negative consequence. Therefore, a speaker who utters a sentence using the connective e kaciko intends to invite the hearer to infer his or her intention being implied beyond just the semantic content. In contrast with the use of e kaciko in (74b), in contexts describing natural cause-effect relationships ese is frequently found, as shown in (75). (75) Ipen yelum-ey kamwum-i tul-ese ssal nongsa-ka cal an This summer TEMP drought-NOM have-ESE rice farming-NOM well NEG Toy-ess-ta. 149 be done-PAST-WE ‘We have had a poor crop of rice because of the drought this summer.’ In utterance (75), the preceding clause explains the reason for the issue stated in the subsequent clause, which is thus clearly linked in a causal relationship. In this way, ese is mostly found in contexts that deal with natural consequences or phenomena. The difference between (74b) and (75) is the speaker’s intention behind producing the utterances. The speaker in (74b) projects her attitude toward the given situation by using e kaciko, whereas the speaker of (75) is more likely to deal with natural consequences or phenomena without projecting her own attitude or feelings. The following examples show additional contexts in which e kaciko is used. (76) a. Kyelhonsik-ey chamsek mos hay-se/ hay kaciko mianhay-yo. Wedding-LOC attend NEG do-ESE do-E KACIKO sorry-CDE ‘I’m sorry for not attending your wedding.’ b. Towacwe-se/ ?? Towacwe kaciko komawe-yo. Help-ESE Help-E KACIKO thank-CDE ‘Thank you for helping me.’ In (76), the utterances with ese simply deliver information with a neutral tone of speech. In other words, the speakers of the utterances are simply stating causal relationships. However, when e kaciko is used instead of ese, the same utterances imply the speaker’s intention, which, here (76a), is to emphasize the speaker’s feeling of regret; therefore, the utterance in (76a) using e kaciko can be construed as follows: 150 (77) [Please understand that] I’m sorry because I couldn’t attend your wedding. Given the implication that e kaciko conveys an expression of the speaker’s stance in interaction, the connective e kaciko basically functions to emphasize not only the original semantic relationship but also the related pragmatic meanings based on diverse contexts, including sequential, causal, adversative, and conditional. Accordingly, utterance (76a) shows that e kaciko delivers the intention of the speaker. To this end, the speaker invites the hearer to understand that the speaker’s feeling of ‘being apologetic’ is sincere. Whereas utterance (76a) successfully achieves the pragmatic meaning as shown in (77) by using e kaciko, (76b) seems to fail to deliver a similar sense of pragmatic meaning, i.e., “[I hereby emphatically express that] I want to thank you because you helped me,” which is marked with question marks in (76a). As a matter of fact, the contrasting uses of e kaciko in (76a) and (76b) reveal a noteworthy characteristic of e kaciko. That is, the use of e kaciko in (76b) is judged to be odd, or less natural, than that (76a). One reason for this is because, as analyzed thus far, unlike ese, e kaciko had accrued a strong tendency to occur in negative contexts than in positive contexts. This finding in conformity with the discussion by Van Dijk (1979) that categorizes English connectives in terms of sematic connectives and pragmatic connectives. …such as and, but, or, although, yet, because, if … then, etc.; these connectives, and their use, will be called sematic because they express relations between propositions and represent relations between the facts which are the denoted of these propositions (Van Dijk, 1979:449). Van Dijk (1979) claims that semantic accounts that only concern the meaning relations and denoted fact relations of connectives are very restrictive. Therefore, a pragmatic account of 151 connectives is required to clarify their colloquial uses in everyday language use. According to Van Dijk (1979), uses of connectives can be differentiated by their distributions. 5.4.4 Associations of schematic knowledge in e kaciko discourses In this section, I will further elucidate the pragmatic nature of e kaciko that distinguishes it from the connective ese. As repeatedly noted earlier, an accurate understanding of e kaciko relies strongly on the inclusion of a pragmatic approach. (78) a. ((While a woman watching her daughter-in-law is playing with her little nephew)) Sayngkin ke-nun ssalssalmac-kwu chakapkey sayngkye kacikwu ay-nun Looking thing-NOM unfriendly-CONN cold appear-E KACIKO kid-NOM Cham cohahay. really like-CPE ‘She looks unfriendly and cold, but she really likes kids.’ [I’m surprised to see that] She really likes kids. TV Drama, Gwutseyela Gumswuna, Episode 128 b. Kicasil-eyse kongpwuhay-kaciko kwayen kisa-lul ssu-l swu iss-nunya Pressroom-LOC research-E KACIKO indeed article-ACC write-can-INTR hanun kes-i kekceng”-i-lamye kica-tul-uy kisacakseng NOMZ-NOM worry-COP-QUOT reporter-PLR-GEN writing articles Hayngthay-lul piphanha-n kes-ulo 2 il allyecye-ss-ta. Behavior-ACC criticize-as to-INS 2 CL reveal-PAST-WE ‘On the 2 nd , it was revealed that President Muhyun Roh criticized the news reporters’ 152 writing conduct, saying “If they stay in the pressroom and do the research there, I quite doubt that they can actually write.” The connective e kaciko comprises the adversative context in (78a) and the conditional context in (78b). In (78a) the speaker makes the utterance about surprising findings that do not match with her preexisting judgment or speculation about the addressee, which had formed as a fixed idea regarding the addressee’s appearance. Although the contradictory discovery turned out to be positive (in contrast with the frequent cases of being used in negative contexts) and thus led her to state the unexpected positive surprise. Despite the positive aspect of the surprise, however, the preceding clauses connected with e kaciko still signal the speakers’ negative stance. That is, the mother-in-law states that now she has learned that her daughter-in-law likes children, and at the same time she expresses her negative attitude toward her daughter-in-law by mentioning her ‘unfriendly and cold appearance.’ Given the relationship between a mother-in-law and daughter- in-law, the mother-in-law is relatively privileged to openly express her negative stance, which possibly signals implications such as a suggestive and provocative meaning, but not vice-versa. Therefore, in typical Korean sociocultural contexts this type of e kaciko usage would be rarely produced by a junior or person of lower social rank, particularly when participating in a conversation such as that in the present example. As illustrated in (78b), e kaciko connects two clauses in a conditional relation. The speaker intentionally employs e kaciko to deliver meaning beyond the semantic meaning. As a matter of fact, the given co-text sufficiently provides contextual cues to understand the utterance containing e kaciko. That is, the speaker is questioning the content based on his observation of the writers’ behavior and is therefore ‘criticizing’ it. In addition, as shown in (78b) (and discussed in detail in Section 5.6.2), e kaciko is often used in the formation of rhetorical questions, and by definition rhetorical questions do not seek any specific answer. Instead, they presuppose the 153 answer in the questioner’s mind, despite being expressed in an interrogative form. As discussed in greater detail in Section 5.6.2, owing to the nature of the rhetorical questions that frequently occur in utterances in which the conditional connective e kaciko is used, such utterances are likely to imply the speaker’s doubtful attitude toward the addressee. Therefore, the connective e kaciko conveys illocutionary meanings that reflect the speaker’s judgement and attitude. Based on the illocutionary reading, furthermore, the utterance provokes the perlocutionary effect of “Leave the pressroom and do your research onsite to be a better journalist.” In other words, the use of e kaciko functions as a speech act tool of ‘giving advice’ or ‘bringing attention to a problem’ and therein the speaker anticipates that the current situation will be changed or improved. To achieve the pragmatic meaning in terms of the illocutionary and perlocutionary meanings, the proper schemata must be activated, which is related to the connective e kaciko. That is, the speaker chooses e kaciko over ese aiming to convey the meaning that the speaker is surprised to see a cause-effect consequence that is contradictory to her expectations. The context where the speaker expresses her attitude toward the recovery and addressee frequently creates condescending or sarcastic tones. Accordingly, utterances using e kaciko tend to create face-threatening effects. Therefore, with respect to the particular sociocultural schemata, the interpersonal relationship between the speaker and the interlocutor influences the use of e kaciko. In particular, speakers of utterances including e kaciko tend to be older than their addressees, the social status of the speaker tends to be equal or higher than that of the interlocutor, or the two interlocutors are intimate friends. 5.6 Summary In this chapter we have looked at the ways e kaciko is used differently from connective ese by taking into account their uses in various contexts. To date, ese has been mostly considered 154 to be a sequential or causal connective. In addition, in this dissertation I have addressed the fact that ese actually functions as an adversative and conditional connective. Presumably, the adversative and conditional uses of ese have been neglected because ese is less likely found in such contexts; in reality, e kaciko is more likely to be selected by Korean speakers over ese to deliver such pragmatic meanings. Although the connective e kaciko shares morphosyntactic and semantic properties with other connectives at the locutionary level, the contexts in which e kaciko appear reveal the unique pragmatic meanings of e kaciko. In this regard, compared to discourses in which e kaciko appears, ese appears to create meanings at a more locutionary level. In other words, ese does not invite the interlocutor to decode the speaker’s intention, nor does it convey anything beyond the literal meaning of the utterance. Thereby, it seems to focus more on simply delivering the content. In contrast, e kaciko actively creates speech acts with reference to illocutionary and perlocutionary effects. Speaking of the distributional uses of ese and e kaciko, ese was observed in greater distributions across written and spoken discourses. However, e kaciko was found to be exclusively confined to spoken discourse by showing greater concentrations in informal and negative contexts. The connective e kaciko in these particular contexts functions to express the speaker’s attitude toward the proposition or the interlocutor. The tendencies of its distributional uses, both synchronically and diachronically, have made e kaciko unique in that it contains particular pragmatic meanings which reflect the intention that the speaker intends to convey to the interlocutor. During the accrued process of meaning negotiation through the use of e kaciko, a semantic meaning shift occurred in which the connective acquired a pragmatic meaning that includes both subjective and intersubjective meanings. As we discussed in Chapter 3, subjectification and intersubjectification have been known to take place in the process of 155 grammaticalization and pragmaticalization, comprising the multifold nature of the linguistic item. Furthermore, in conversational interaction, intersubjectivity functions to make reference to norms and expectations which emerge while establishing discourse and construct schemata. Lastly, it must be noted that e kaciko is still in the process of this shift in terms of its meanings and functions. Importantly, the nature of the connective e kaciko has carried over into the development of the SCE e kaciko. In the next chapter we will examine discourses in which the grammatical construction e kaciko is used as a SCE. We will investigate whether the pragmatic nature of the connective e kaciko that I have discussed in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 also emerges in contexts in which the SCE e kaciko appears. To this end, we will aim to better elucidate how the speaker and interlocutor both have a role in the realization of discourse. 156 CHAPTER 6 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION III: ANALYZING DISCOURSE IN WHICH E KACIKO APPEARS AS A SENTENCE-CONCLUDING ENDING 6.1 Introduction As earlier discussed in Chapter 3, the verb kaci has undergone grammaticalization by co- occurring with the sequential connective ko. As a further step of grammaticalization, we observed that the grammaticalized kaciko participated in constructing a new grammatical construction, viz. e kaciko functioning as a connective. Therefore, in Chapter 4 we analyzed many examples at the discourse level and elucidated the connective use of e kaciko with diverse functions in sequential, causal, adversative, and conditional contexts. By analyzing these diverse contexts, we also revealed that the connective e kaciko functions to expresses the speaker’s stance toward the content being said, or even toward the addressee, e.g. ‘a judgmental attitude toward the addressee’s behavior.’ However, this pragmatic function of e kaciko cannot be explained by traditional accounts of Korean linguistics. In traditional studies, only modal endings are discussed as ways to indicate the speaker’s attitude toward the content, or ‘what is said,’ and in addition they only occur after the verb stem. Moreover, such modal endings are generally described as expressing the speaker’s attitude toward the content, or ‘what is said,’ e.g., the modal ending ci is said to indicate that the speaker already knew about the content. However, as our corpus data indicates from discourse-level analyses, the grammatical construction e kaciko occurs at the end of a sentence and functions to carry the speaker’s attitude toward not only the content (‘what is said’) but also toward the addressee. It is a noteworthy fact 157 that the SCE e kaciko is found in utterances in which the speaker expresses her or his unpleasant feelings, such as sarcasm, complaints, regrets, lamentableness, frustration, and other negative feelings, toward what has happened, the speaker him/herself, an interlocutor, or a 3rd party. With reference to the diverse discourses found in such data, I will first organize the corpus data according to the types of speaker’s stance and the directions that the effect of expressing stances consequently belongs to. What pragmatic meanings and roles are conveyed by e kaciko will be discussed afterwards. In addition, the discourse structure will be examined with respect to how e kaciko comprises discourses; what types of utterances e kaciko comprises; and how participants interact. I will also delve into the discourses in terms of what kinds of social acts are practiced by e kaciko and what and how schemata play roles therein. Drawing upon what we have revealed previously, i.e., that the connective e kaciko is frequently used in negative contexts, we will examine how the speaker expresses her or his attitude toward such negative contexts given related issues such as politeness and facework. In other words, we will discuss how e kaciko can be an effective vehicle in communication while still bearing the risk of face-threatening effects which might cause interpersonal friction. In this way, we will be able to further illustrate what pragmatic functions e kaciko carries and how e kaciko contributes to comprising discourses in interaction. 6.2 Expressing the speaker’s frustration toward what has happened and its consequences In this section we shall observe examples that express the speaker’s frustration about what has happened. In the following example the speaker feels frustrated by the rainy weather. See how the discourse is constructed and how the SCE e kaciko appears therein. (79) Pi-nun way wa kaciko. Rain-NOM why come-E KACIKO 158 (lit. Why is it raining?!!) The utterance in (79) is excerpted from a Korean newspaper. Despite the fact that newspaper discourses comprise written contexts, here e kaciko is used in the headline and connotes the sentence utterer’s emotion felt toward the given situation. Specifically, in the title of the article the writer projects the perspective of ‘young baseball fans.’ Here, a question arises: what enables the writer to construct such an utterance that perfectly captures the boy’s emotion while simultaneously being perceived naturally by the article’s many readers? There is a series of schemata strongly related to the process of discourse construction. As Widdowson (2004: 26) notes, among the contexts of knowledge that can be brought to a discourse, some knowledge that the text producer assumes to be shared is typically related to more general schematic structures of knowledge. Examples of such shared knowledge include general knowledge of natural phenomena, typical sequences of real-life incidents, and human behavior; or, it sometimes may refer to localized schemata that correspondingly have been constructed and shared by intimates. In the case of (79), the schemata seem to be applicable in a greater and general sense given that newspapers usually assume a variety of unspecified recipients. Moreover, most recipients are likely aware of the fact that headlines can be implicative and connotative and yet still represent the core issue to be expressed. With respect to ‘headline schema,’ not only knowledge about what the text contains, but knowledge about how the content is organized is also a significant factor in interpretation. In this regard, some researchers have attempted to categorize different types of schemata. Carrell and Eisterhold (1983) and McCarthy (2011) indicate that schematic knowledge is made of two types of prior knowledge, content schemata and formal schemata. Background information on the given topic comprises content schemata, whereas knowledge about the rhetorical organizational structures of different types of texts comprises formal schemata. In terms of formal schemata, knowledge of genre and register, 159 for example, are related to trying to understand the role of background knowledge in processing discourse. Interestingly, we must decode the writer’s intention of borrowing a conversational tone in a true written discourse. That is, in our current example, the writer delivers the speaker’s attitude toward the situation viz. the statement ‘It rains,’ with the SCE e kaciko implying the attitude. In fact, we may rely on the accompanying visual image to interpret the meaning of (79). Image 1. Image attached to the article headlined ‘It’s raining- E KACIKO’ Given typical newspaper schemata, articles are often presented with visual images such as photos, as seen in Image 1, and moreover, the interpretation of the image corresponds with the story of the article. In Image 1, the boy’s facial expression in the photo mainly catches the reader’s eye, which suggests that the boy wearing the Yankee’s jersey is unhappy. Furthermore, there is a co- text that follows along with the headline and the photo image. (80) Elin yakwu phayn-tul-i 6 il (hyenci sikan) mikwuk nyuyok yangkhi Young baseball fan-PLR-NOM 6 CL local time USA New York Yankee Suthatiwum-eyse yellil yeycengiten mikwuk phulo yakwu (MLB) nyuyok Stadium-LOC hold be scheduled USA professional baseball New York Yangkhisu-wa mineysotha thuwinsu-uy kyengki-ka wuchen-ulo chwisotoy-ca Yankees-and Minnesota Twins-GEN match-NOM rain-INST be cancelled-CONN Kwancwungsek-ul ttena-ko iss-ta. 160 stands-ACC leave-PROG-WE ‘The scheduled match on the 6 th between the NY Yankees and the Minnesota Twins has been cancelled due to rain, and young baseball fans are leaving the stadium.’ Yonhap News, Sports section, April 7, 2011 30 This content from the main article, which is the co-text, provides further knowledge. Therefore, the readers infer that the boy, who may also represent other people, including even the readers, feels the frustration caused by the rain. These comprehensive contexts, including the headline, photo, and co-text, enable us to analyze the entire discourse simultaneously. Consequently, it leads us to construe the utterance including e kaciko as to “[I hereby express being frustrated by the fact that] it rained.” Thereby, the SCE e kaciko conveys the pragmatic meaning of frustration in a context where a nonhuman addressee brings a negative influence upon the speaker. The pragmatic meaning of e kaciko is revealed in the squared brackets. Schema activation may not always be developed as smoothly as in the discourse examples we have just examined. In other words, understanding the discourse which comprises the relation of ‘rainy weather’ with the ‘called-off game’ is relatively easy to interpret. However, it is not necessary that all readers have the same degree of activated schemata, and as a result they may have different interpretations of the content. See the example below. (81) a. Lokheys-un way sswa kaciko. Rocket-NOM why launch-E KACIKO (lit. Why did they launch the rocket?!!) b. 13 il phacwu pimwucangcitay kunche-eyse pwukhan-uy kongkyek-ey 13 CL Phacwu DMZ nearby-LOC North Korea-GEN attack-DIR 30 This article can be found at http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=104&oid=091&aid=0002984096. 161 taypihan kwunsa hwunlyen-i yellin kawuntey han pyengsa-ka cacwupho prepare military drill-NOM hold during one solider-NOM self-propelled gun chalyang-ey thapsunghay-iss-ta. vehicle-LOC ride-PROG-WE ‘A Korean solider near the DMZ ((demilitarized zone)) on the 13 th is riding in a vehicle armed with a self-propelled gun during a military drill to prepare for attacks from North Korea.’ Reuters: Korean edition, World News section, April 13, 2012 31 From the headline (81a), the reader anticipates the decoding of the use of e kaciko as a signal of the writer’s intention of projecting the soldier’s colloquial voice. In addition, the co-text (81b) further supplies the concrete context that the South Korean army is practicing military drills due to North Korea’s launch of a rocket. In such a context, the linguistic elements such as ‘rocket’ and ‘to launch’ may trigger schemata by relying on the reader’s prior knowledge related to the same topic. In addition, the visual image that is coherently connected with the headline and the body text serves as a stretch of context. Image 2. Image attached to the article headlined ‘They launched a rocket-E KACIKO’ 31 This article can be found at http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=104&oid=045&aid=0002044711. 162 As seen in Image 2, as for this article the image explicitly delivers us the soldier’s perplexed facial expression, which clearly serves as a contextual clue. That is, North Korea’s rocket launch increased tensions and concerns around the world, and thus the use of e kaciko here signals a South Korean soldier’s unpleasant emotions felt regarding the incident. Furthermore, it is possible that not just confined to this example, as more relevant schemata are activated, such as the recent Korean history regarding the relationship between South and North Korea, or international relations as they relate to North Korea and the like, the reader can be expected to have a better and more efficient interpretation. As a result, the recipients infer the implication of the SCE e kaciko. That is, the utterance (102a) can be interpreted as “[I hereby express being frustrated by the fact that] they launched a rocket” and the writer’s intention is indicated in the square brackets. The intention behind uttering both (99) and (102a) can be interpreted as follows: the speakers feel frustrated because the incidents do not accord with their personal expectations and wishes. Across the corpus data, it was found that this type of discourse also occurs frequently in negative contexts. A. Contextual factors In addition, examples (82) are repeated below to examine the use of the deferential ending yo. (82) a. *Pi-nun way wa kaciko-yo. Rain-NOM why come-E KACIKO-CDE ‘[I hereby express being frustrated by the fact that] It rains’ b. *Lokheys-un way sswa kaciko-yo. Rocket-NOM why launch-E KACIKO-CDE ‘[I hereby express being frustrated by the fact that] They launched a rocket.’ 163 As shown above, the deferential ending yo is not allowed in utterances that end in e kaciko. The deferential ending style is used here to express the speaker’s deference to a hearer, which means that the hearer must exist. Intuitively speaking, however, the speakers in (82a) and (82b) do not seem to presuppose hearers, but rather intend to produce the utterances as episodes of self-talk. Another notable fact with the utterances is that the wh-word ‘why’ is used to intensify the tone of e kaciko. Let us look again at the examples to see whether the use of a wh-word is optional: (83) a. *Pi-nun wa kaciko Rain-NOM come-E KACIKO ‘[I hereby express being frustrated by the fact that] It rains’ b. *Lokheys-un sswa kaciko . Rocket-NOM launch-E KACIKO ‘[I hereby express being frustrated by the fact that] They launched a rocket’ As shown in (83), without co-occurring with ‘why,’ e kaciko can no longer function as a SCE denoting the speaker’s intention. In sum, if the speaker’s intention is to express her or his frustration toward the given situation, then two conditions must be met. First, the proposition should present a fact or state of affairs which is contrary to the speaker’s expectations or assumptions, and thus affect the speaker negatively. Second, the interjection way ‘why’ must co-occur in the utterance together with the ending e kaciko. 164 6.3 Expressing the speaker’s regret about what she or he had already done In this section, we shall examine discourses in which the SCE e kaciko is deployed to mark the speaker’s regret. As generally defined, ‘regret’ refers to the speaker’s negative emotional reaction to her or his past behaviors in that she or he feels sorry about something that she or he did. This regretful emotional reaction that we discuss here is confined to the 1 st person subject. In English, there are expressions of regret such as “I shouldn’t have ~” or “I regret that~,” and there are corresponding expressions in Korean such as “~ci malkel (kulayssta)” or "~un key hwuhoytoynta," respectively. The SCE e kaciko is distinguished from these for the following reasons. First, the SCE e kaciko is a grammatical construction that has been grammaticalized and consequently involves multifold functions and meanings and, more importantly, pragmatic functions. Second, the SCE e kaciko includes neither a negative particle nor vocabulary that directly indicates the emotion of ‘regret.’ Therefore, at the locutionary level e kaciko cannot be construed, and thus it must be interpreted from the illocutionary level. See the following example. (84) Hankwuk-eyse saki manhi tanghay-ss-eyo. Swueplyo nay-ko insayng Korea-LOC swindle many suffer-PAST-CPE tuition pay-CONN life Paywu-ntako sayngkakhay-yo. Kulentey ilen sik-ulo ce-ykey ton-ul Learn-COMP think-CDE However like this way-INST I-DAT money-ACC yokwuhanun salam-i manh-ayo. Cikum welsey sal-ayo. ask person-NOM many-CDE now monthly rent live-CDE Kulentey ku ke-l ettehkey cey-ka ta haykyelha-pnikka? however the thing-ACC how I-NOM all handle-FDINTR Hankwuk o-n ke hwuhoyhay-ss-eyo. Korea come-NOMZ regret-PAST-CDE Kwaynhi wa kaciko. Cengmal ccokphallye-yo. 165 In vain come-E KACIKO really ashamed-CDE ‘I have swindled many times in Korea. I thought I paid tuition for learning life. But, there have been many people who asked me for money in this way. I live in a monthly-rent place. But, how can I handle all my money problems? I regret that I came to Korea. In vain, I came -E KACIKO. I feel really ashamed.’ Shindongah, October 2010 32 Mr. Kwon is a famed chef and has worked at the best hotels in many countries including the USA, China, and the UAE. He moved to Korea in 2009 and started new businesses. However, he ended up being embroiled in legal battles. The utterance (84) is excerpted from an interview he had with a Korean magazine. He talks about his bitter experiences in Korea and confesses that now he is not in a position to handle his vast amount of money problems on his own. At the end of the statement, he utters the sentence that indicates his regret about his past decision to come to Korea. Thereafter, one additional utterance that also expresses his regretful stance follows. The sentence includes the SCE e kaciko and therein the speaker talks to himself. The natural translation of the sentence into English can be “I shouldn’t have come to Korea pointlessly.” Likewise, the statement “[I hereby express being regretful about the fact that] I came to Korea” describes an interpretation of the utterance wherein the pragmatic meaning of e kaciko is more clearly indicated. That is, the SCE e kaciko conveys the pragmatic meaning expressed in the square brackets. The speaker repeatedly expresses his regret about the fact that he came to Korea by using e kaciko. The regret illustrated by the SCE e kaciko also signals the speaker’s stronger feeling that can be described as frustration, self-disappointment, self-pity, and the like. 32 The entire article can be found at http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=110&oid=262&aid=0000003962. 166 A. Contextual factors Interestingly, the use of the adverb, kwaynhi ‘in vain; uselessly; fruitlessly’ is mandatory. See below. (85) a. * Wa kaciko. Come-E KACIKO. b. Way wa kaciko Why come-E KACIKO. ‘[I hereby express being regretful about the fact that] I came (to Korea).’ As example (85a) indicates, the e kaciko-utterance here must co-occur with kwaynhi. Otherwise, it cannot comprise an acceptable sentence. More intriguingly, the adverb can be replaced by way ‘why,’ as seen in (85b). Yet the sentence expresses the speaker’s regret as the sentence in (84) does by using kwaynhi and the SCE e kaciko. This suggests that in this type of discourse where e kaciko participates in comprising utterances that express the speaker’s regret toward what she or he did, the adverb kwaynhi ‘in vain’ and the WH word, way ‘why’ are mostly interchangeable, but either element is required to be acceptable. See below for another discourse that contains e kaciko and way ‘why.’ (86) Chayyong sincheykemsa hay-ya ha-nuntey--- ce-n cincca papo-i-nka po Recruitment physical exam do-should-CONN I-NOM really stupid-COP-look like -ayo. Sayngkakepsi cip-eyse kapang chayngki-ta kapang sok eynecipa -CDE blankly home-LOC bag pack-CONN bag inside energy bar Mek-ess-eyo. Eyhyu --- kuke-l way mek-e kaciko. Eat-PAST-CDE INTJ the thing-ACC why eat-E KACIKO Olaykanmaney ha-ni kumsik-to sayngkak mos hay-ss-neyyo. 8 sikan 167 After a long time do-CONN fast-also think NEG do-PAST-CDE 8 CL Kumsikhay-ya ha-nta-neyyo. Eyhyo--- nayil achim-ey tasi ha-nun ke- llo. 33 Fast-should-QUOT-CDE INTJ tomorrow Morning-TEMP again do-NOMZ-CPE ‘I should take a physical exam for the job recruitment… but I think I’m an idiot. While I was packing my bag blankly at home, I ate an energy bar from the bag. Gosh, why did I eat it – E KACIKO. I couldn’t think of fasting because it has been a while (since I did so). I heard that you normally have to fast for eight hours [in advance of the physical], you know. Gosh…’ The utterance in (86) was found on a public blog on the Internet. The blog users mostly share information regarding parenting, etc., and they also casually talk about their daily routines. The writer of (86) posts about her experience in a spoken speech style, and therein she regrets the fact that she ate an energy bar accidentally. Therefore, the sentence can be translated as “[I hereby express being regretful about the fact that] I ate an energy bar.” Although the WH word way ‘why’ is used, it does not comprise an interrogative sentence, but rather creates an exclamatory sentence. Earlier, I mentioned that the adverb kwaynhi and the WH word way can mostly substitute for each other. Let us examine if this also works in this case. (87) a. Kuke-l way mek-e kaciko. The thing-ACC WHY eat-E KACIKO ‘[I hereby express being regretful about the fact that] I ate an energy bar’ b. Kuke-l kwaynhi mek-e kaciko. The thing-ACC in vain eat-E KACIKO ‘[I hereby express being regretful about the fact that] I ate an energy bar’ 33 This discourse can be found at http://cafe.naver.com/msbabys/939755. 168 As presented in (87), both (87a) and (87b) comprise grammatical sentences and successfully indicate the speaker’s regret toward what she did. However, a critical difference lies between them. The difference is related with the matter of the speaker’s willingness. In other words, if the WH word ‘why’ is used as in (87a), the utterance conveys that the speaker did an act either willingly or accidentally. On the other hand, as in (87b), when the adverb kwaynhi is used the utterance implies that the speaker did the act willingly. By the same token, the utterance with ‘kwaynhi ~ e kaciko’ may result in a secondary interpretation of “I wouldn’t do ~ if I could turn back the clock.” Hence, kwaynhi cannot be used in the discourse of (86) because the speaker ate an energy bar unintentionally. To sum up, in utterances that express the speaker’s regret about what she or he did by using e kaciko, either the adverb kwaynhi or the WH word way must co-occur. In addition, way can replace the use of kwaynhi in all cases, whereas kwaynhi can be used instead of way only when the discourse indicates that the speaker did an act voluntarily. Therefore, in (86) the speaker regrets the act that she did mistakenly while commenting “I think I’m an idiot.” Thereby, her attitude toward what she did more likely conveys self-disappointment and frustration. Since expressing one’s regret also comprises a type of self-talk, the deferential ending yo cannot appear after e kaciko although there is a senior interlocutor; this is because the utterance is not directed at the hearer. 6.4 Expressing the speaker’s attitude about a lamentable situation the addressee has caused The speaker often expresses a piteous emotion toward the addressee (2 nd or 3 rd person) about what she or he has done. In such discourses, the SCE e kaciko indicates the speaker’s feelings of lamentableness. See how it comprises discourse below. 169 (88) Khulimppang appa ppayngsoni caswu sosik-ey neythicun-tul-un “khulimppang Cream bread dad hit-and-run surrender news-DIR netizen-PLR-NOM cream bread appa ppayngsoni caswu, phyengsayng yucok-kwa koin-eykey dad hit-and-run surrender entire life family of the deceased-and victim-DAT sacoyha-ko sal-kil” “khulimppang appa ppayngsoni caswu, kulekey way beg-CONN live-NOMZ cream bread dad hit-and-run surrender so why umcwuwuncen-ul hay kaciko “khulimppang appa ppayngsoni caswu, drunk driving-ACC do-E KACIKO cream bread dad hit-and-run surrender anthakkap-ta” tung tayanghan panung-ul poye-ss-ta sad-WE etc. various response-ACC show-PAST-WE ‘Toward the news that the suspect involved in a Cream Bread Dad hit-and-run surrendered himself to the police, netizens show various responses such as “Cream Bread Dad’s suspect surrendered; he should apologize for his entire life to the victim’s family,” “Cream Bread Dad’s suspect surrendered; so, he drove drunk-E KACIKO’ “Cream Bread Dad’s suspect surrendered; such a pity.” Chosun Daily News, January 30, 2015 34 To provide some context to this discourse, there was a hit-and-run accident that attracted the attention of many Koreans. From the accident site, some cream bread was found with the victim’s body, and later it turned out that he was on his way home after buying some cream bread for his pregnant wife. His wife wanted to eat cream cake but they were too poor to afford it, so the husband had to buy cheaper cream bread for her. The news soon spread through mass media and social media websites, and people became furious, with some even actively engaged in searching for the suspect online by sharing information in terms of witness accounts and hearsay on the 34 The entire article can be found at http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2015/01/30/2015013000889.html. 170 Internet, and providing information for the police investigation. In the meantime, people nicknamed the victim ‘Cream Bread Dad’ to show their remorse. Eventually, the hit-and-run driver turned himself in because he felt much social pressure and guilt because of the wide-spread attention across Korean society. Many people showed an interest in the story and shared their thoughts about it by leaving comments in response to the press release. One of the responses quoted in the newspaper is shown in (88). The SCE e kaciko is used to express the speaker’s frustration toward the addressee. (89) Kulekey way umcwuwuncen-ul hay kaciko So why drunk driving-ACC do-E KACIKO ‘[I hereby lament the fact that] he drove drunk’ The pragmatic meaning of e kaciko is indicated in the squared bracket. In addition, the emotion of pity implies the speaker’s attitude toward the victim in that the speaker berates the fact that the addressee did such an act, i.e., ‘drove drunk,’ in this case. A. Contextual factors In this utterance we notice that the interjection way ‘why’ co-occurs with e kaciko and that it can be translated as “The man shouldn’t have drove drunk.” As discussed earlier, by the same token, way ‘why’ is employed here to emphasize the speaker’s emotion toward what is said. Therefore, the utterance including ‘way~ e kaciko’ can be translated as “[I hereby lament the fact that] he drove drunk.” (90) Kulekey way (: :) umcwuwuncen-ul hay kaciko So why drunk driving-ACC do-E KACIKO 171 ‘[I hereby lament the fact that] he drove drunk’ Example (90) illustrates the prosodic features of the utterance. Despite the fact that this utterance was provided in written form in a newspaper article, if it were put in a spoken context, there is a strong likelihood that pauses and/or stress would appear. In addition, the speaker’s lamenting attitude that implies her or his criticism is confined to contexts where reproachable consequences are demonstrated. It is within this negative context that the speaker shows an empathetic attitude toward the victim of the addressee’s condemnable behavior. This also suggests the critical nature of the discourse; that is, the troublesome context, as a matter of fact, does not directly affect the speaker. Notwithstanding, the speaker feels frustration, anger, and the like toward the addressee, and meanwhile she or he expresses a piteous feeling for what has already happened and cannot be changed. Given that the utterer of e kaciko expresses his stance toward the addressee, the meaning of e kaciko here appears to be intersubjective. 6.5 Expressing the speaker’s frustration toward the addressee about what she or he did to the speaker Across the corpus data, many instances revealed that the SCE e kaciko is used to express the speaker’s frustration toward the addressee, and in such contexts the speaker complains that the addressee has brought a negative effect or result directly to the speaker. Let us analyze the following example and discuss how e kaciko comprises the discourse. (91) Ku-nun tangsi kimyenglan pep nonlan-ey tayhay “cikum nonuytoy-ko iss nun She-NOM then Kimyounglan law controversy-about now be discussed-PROG Pep-un nay-ka ippepha-l tangsi-wa-nun talun cem-i nemwu Law-NOM I-NOM propose a law-at the time-with-CMP different point-NOM too 172 Manh-tanun ipcang-ul pwunmyenghi hay-ss-ta. Ie “way keki Many-QUOT position-ACC clearly do-PAST-WE subsequently why there nay ilum-ul pwuthye kaciko” kwanyeha-ko siph ci-anh-tako tespwuthye-ss-ta. my name-ACC attach-E KACIKO get involved-want to-NEG-QUOT add-PAST-WE Sasilsang casin-i nay-ssten an-kwa tallacin pep-ey In fact herself-NOM submit-PAST Bill-with become different law-DIR Casin-uy ilum-i pwuth-un tey tayhay pwulman-ul tholoha-n kes-i-ta. 35 Herself-GEN name-NOM attach-about complaint-ACC express-NOMZ-COP- WE ‘She clarifies her position with reference to the controversial Kimyounglan Law and states “The law that is currently discussed turned out very different from the law I proposed at the time.” She also added “They added my name to the law- E KACIKO” to clearly state the fact that she didn’t want to get involved. In fact, she complained that her name was used for the law, which became different from what she proposed. Sisa Journal, March 10, 2015 Example (91) is excerpted from a news magazine article, and it quotes Younglan Kim’s interview regarding the Kimgyonglan Law and its related controversial issues. In March 2015, the South Korean Congress approved a new law called the Kimyounglan Law that aimed to revive discipline in public office by dispelling corruption. However, the law provoked controversy in Korean society as it passed, mainly because some civic organizations also became targets of the law’s application, which was inconsistent with the original concerns about the ethics of public servants. The law was named after the former chairperson of the Anti-Corruption & Civil Rights Commission, Younglan Kim, since she worked on much of the legislation of the law. As shown in (91), she feels disgruntled at the way her name kept being mentioned although she did not play a role in the legislative process of the law. The utterance including e 35 The entire article can be found at http://www.sisapress.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=64134. 173 kaciko can be interpreted as ‘[I hereby express being frustrated about the fact that] (they) added my name to the law.’ The pragmatic meaning of SCE e kaciko here is revealed in the squared brackets, and it clearly conveys the speaker’s stance toward the addressee and what has consequently happened to her: her reputation suffering a great deal. Although the addressee is not specified therein, it appears to refer to the group of people involved in naming the law. Her frustration is more concretely expressed by the interjection way ‘why.’ The analysis of this utterance appears to be verified by the last sentence of the excerpt, “…it indicates that she complains about…” As an additional example, a short conversation is provided below, which is borrowed from a Korean TV drama, ‘Heart to Heart,’ which aired on January 17, 2015. (92) A1: Nay-ka michy-ess-ci. Kulen ke way ha-lako kulay kaciko. I-NOM crazy-PAST-CPE like that thing why do-QUOT say-E KACIKO Chaykimcy-eyo. Ce icey ettekha-yo? Nay-ka i tolphali uysa mal-ul Take responsibility-CDE I now how to do-CDINTR I-NOM this quack saying-ACC Tutnu-n key ani-ess-ci. listen to-NOMZ it is not-PAST-CPE ‘I was crazy. You told me to do the thing- E KACIKO. It’s your responsibility. What can I do now? I shouldn’t have listened to a quack.’ B1: Kulayse mwe-lako kulay-ss-e? So what-QUOT say-PAST-CPINTR ‘So, what did you say?’ A2: Cohaha-nta kulay-ss-tako-yo Like-QUOT say-PAST-QUOT-CDE ‘I told him I liked him’ 174 After Speaker A confessed her feelings to a guy she likes, she came to Speaker B to blame him for his advice. As seen in (A1), the deferential ending yo is not deployed in the utterance that ends with e kaciko or the last sentence. Given her interaction with Speaker B across the entire discourse, she uses deferential endings, whereas Speaker B addresses Speaker A by using casual- informal endings. Therefore, these two utterances without yo can be interpreted as comprising self-talk. In the first self-talk, e kaciko functions to express Speaker A’s stance toward Speaker B as conveying the pragmatic meaning of ‘[I hereby express being frustrated about the fact that] you told me to do the thing.’ She looks evidently discontent by the fact that he influenced her to make a confession. Therefore, she turns her criticism directly toward Speaker B, who is believed to be the cause of all the fuss, and thus the SCE e kaciko along with the interjection way ‘why’ implies this intention of the speaker. With the two prior examples of (91) and (92) we noticed the emergence of the interjection way ‘why’ is used as an interjection together with e kaciko serve to convert the utterances from an interrogative structure to an exclamatory one. The structure is interrogative, but it does not require an answer; instead, the utterances express the speakers’ emotional state or attitude. In (91), the speaker’s intention is not to ask why the addressee(s) happened to add the speaker’s name to the law. Similarly, the speaker in (92) does not anticipate any answer to the question “Why did you tell me to do the thing?” Instead, the speaker is more likely expressing her or his feelings toward the addressee or the given situations, or perhaps talking to himself or herself about the incident. Way ‘why’ can therefore emphasize the speaker’s reproachful attitude against externally caused effects or results. 175 6.6 Pragmatic implications of the interjection way ‘why’ and its relation to constructing SCE e kaciko discourses In the preceding sections, we examined discourses in which e kaciko co-occurred with the WH word way ‘why’ to express the speaker’s feelings of regret, lamentableness, and frustration. We shall further discuss the use of way ‘why’ because it appears frequently across the corpus data when e kaciko appears as the SCE to represent a variety of pragmatic meanings. (93) “<Interjection> way is used when the speaker requests the interlocutor to confirm something” 36 Way, ku salam swul-man mek-umyen mal-i manh-aci-canha WHY that person alcohol-only drink-CONN speech-NOM much-become-CPE ‘WAY, that person becomes talkative whenever he drinks alcohol, you know.’ Drawing upon the definition of way, it functions to remark on the speaker’s intention of anticipating the interlocutor’s confirmation. Therefore, most of the examples given in the dictionary contain the particular ending ci and canha, which denote the meaning of ‘you know.’ (94) Ku salam swul-man mek-umyen mal-i manh-aci-canha that person alcohol-only drink-CONN speech-NOM much-become-CPE ‘That person becomes talkative whenever he drinks alcohol, you know.’ Critically speaking, however, utterance (94) still functions to request the interlocutor’s confirmation without way owing to the ending canha, as seen in (94). Moreover, the definition is 36 This description of way is borrowed from the Basic Korean Dictionary, published by the National Institute of the Korean Language, along with the following example. The translation is mine. 176 only confined to contexts where at least two interlocutors interact, whereby the utterance including way requires the interlocutor’s response. However, as we have examined through discourse analysis, the utterances comprise self-talk, and therefore the deferential ending yo cannot follow after the ending e kaciko. (95) * Kuke-l way mek-e kaciko-yo. The thing-ACC WHY eat-E KACIKO-CDE ‘[I hereby express being regretful about the fact that] I ate it’ (c.f. (87)) Example (95) suggests that way does not necessarily appear in interactive contexts and that it comprises self-talk. Therefore, more importantly, utterances including the interjection way are not confined to contexts in which the speaker seeks the interlocutor’s confirmation. Accordingly, the definition of way ‘why’ is insufficient and thus further discussion is required. First, based on the grammatical restriction that way must co-occur with the SCE e kaciko in ‘expressing regret, lamentableness, and frustration’ contexts, we may conclude that way and e kaciko become a type of fixed phrase to express the speaker’s unpleasant or resentful feelings. In addition, the position of way in utterances of e kaciko is fixed even though it is used as an interjection. (96) a. Ku ke-l way (: :) mek-e kaciko. The thing-ACC WHY eat-E KACIKO b. Way (: :) kuke-l mek-e kaciko. WHY the thing-ACC eat-E KACIKO c. *Kuke-l mek-e kaciko way. 37 37 The only cases when the interjection way is allowed to come after e kaciko are when e kaciko appears as a connective, not as a SCE. 177 The thing-ACC eat-E KACIKO WHY As shown in (96), the interjection way cannot appear at the end of a sentence. In addition, a substantial pause and/or stress is required after uttering way, and way can also be accented if it is intended to emphasize the speaker’s stance. In other words, the insertion of way in utterances including the SCE e kaciko contributes the following pragmatic function to the discourse: emphasizing the speaker’s negative feeling. In this regard, Onodera (2004:53) reveals that the nature of an interjection is to express ‘the speaker’s subjective sentiments and intentions straightforwardly.’ I have thus elucidated that the SCE e kaciko is deployed to express negative feelings, and more interestingly, the pragmatic use of way must co-occur in these types of discourses. 6.7 Expressing the speaker’s sarcastic attitude toward the addressee Across the corpus, many instances indicate the use of e kaciko as a SCE when the speaker implies sarcasm toward the addressee. From the pragmatic view on sarcasm, sarcasm is often discussed as having social functions (Brown and Levinson, 1987; Kasper, 1990; Jorgensen, 1996). In the literature, sarcastic speech is examined based on pragmatic theories with respect to politeness, facework, and the like. For example, Brown and Levinson (1978; 1987) discuss how utterances implying sarcastic or ironic meanings in English often function as face-saving acts. Jorgensen (1996: 614) suggests that sarcasm should be investigated by taking into account ‘how potential effects on hearers may lead speakers to choose sarcasm’ given that speakers consider the effects of their speech on interlocutors and shape speech accordingly (Sperber and Wilson, 1986). Drawing upon the abovementioned studies, in this section we shall examine how Korean speakers produce utterances that denote sarcasm by employing e kaciko in a variety of discourses and social contexts. In particular, we will discuss the following: (a) Who is the target of the 178 sarcasm? (b) Is the addressee present or in a remote location from the speech site? (c) If the addressee engages in the discourse, how do the participants interact? (d) What does sarcasm aim to achieve? For these analyses, we will focus on contextual factors such as the interpersonal relationships between participants, conjoined extra-linguistic elements (e.g., interjections, pauses, pitches), and the activation of schemata (e.g., social norms, etc.). We will conclude with a discussion of the pragmatic uses of e kaciko along with the pragmatic functions of sarcasm in Korean. Note that expressing sarcasm during conversations is not necessarily regarded as face- threatening in all societies, because socio-cultural understandings about certain issues very likely vary across communities, thereby resulting in different kinds of schematic knowledge. We will discuss diverse discourses embedding e kaciko in accordance with varying degrees of sarcasm. 6.7.1 Teasing about the addressee’s behavior between intimates First, we will take a closer look at discourse in which e kaciko conveys a relatively light degree of sarcasm. In the following excerpt, a couple of close friends are having an everyday conversation in which trivial things are mentioned. (97) A1: Kukey (: :) nay-ka sa-n ke-lang thulli-tela. kunyang khameyla-la-mey? (: :) That thing I-NOM buy-thing-with different RPT:CP just camera-QUOT-CPINTR Na-nun pitio khameyla-ye-ss-e. I-TOP video camera-COP-PAST-CPE ‘(Here I recall my memory) That thing…was different from what I bought. You told me that it was just a camera, right? Mine was a video camera.’ B1: (@@) ayu tto kuke-l calangha-ko siph-e kacikwu, (@@) INTJ again the thing-ACC show off-want to-E KACIKO ‘EWW, you want to show off – E KACIKO’ 179 A2: (@@) Ani ka-se sa-ss-e. sinhonyehayng ka-se sa-kacikwu Well go-CONN buy-PAST-CPE honeymoon go-CONN buy-E KACIKO Hay-ss-nuntey, wa-se theylleypicen-hako yenkyelha-yss-nuntey ikey Do-PAST-CONN come-CONN television-with connect- PAST-CONN this thing an mac-na pw-a. khotu-ka, ettehkey toy-nun ke-ya? NEG match- appear to-CPE code-NOM how become-NOMZ-CPINTR ‘Well, I bought the camera on my honeymoon but when I connected it to the TV when I came back, the codes don’t seem to work. What happened?’ B2: kule-l swu iss-ci. Like that-can-CPE ‘That’s a possibility’ A3: Ettehkey hay-ya tway, kuke? How do-should-CPINTR the thing ‘What should I do, about that?’ Sejong Corpus 4CM00034 In the given example above, Speaker A brings up a story recalled from the past regarding cameras, as in (A1). She mentions that Speaker B’s camera was a regular one whereas hers was a video camera, and Speaker B responds as indicated in (B1). His utterance (B1) delivers the content that Speaker A’s utterance reveals her intention of showing off her video camera, which is interpreted as an attempt to tease her. Speaker B’s laughter supports the analysis that his teasing utterance is made in a lighthearted manner, and hence e kaciko is deployed as the SCE. Here, the SCE e kaciko cannot be construed as any of the sematic meanings that comprise the connective e kaciko. Moreover, it is not easy to translate the utterance into English because the SCE e kaciko implies a pragmatic meaning that cannot be defined in a single word. Notwithstanding, the closest interpretation might be “[I hereby express my friendly teasing about the fact that] you want to 180 show off your camera.” The squared bracket refers to the pragmatic meaning of e kaciko that expresses the speaker’s teasing about the addressee’s statement, which does not imply hurtful harassment. As a response to the teasing utterance, Speaker A does not seem to care about the teasing. She just laughs it off and continues her utterances, as seen in (A2). Thereafter, Speaker B also returns to normal speech and participates in constructing the discourse with other participants. 6.7.2 Degrees of sarcasm in accordance with interpersonal relationships In everyday linguistic interaction, e kaciko is frequently found in sarcastic utterances, and the degrees of sarcasm vary. The following examples are excerpted from newspaper articles about TV programs. 38 (98) a. MBC ‘mwuhantocen’ 8 il ohwu pangsong-un ‘thamceng MBC ‘Infinite Challenge’ 8 CL afternoon broadcast-NOM personal investigator thukcip’-ulo kkwumyecin kawuntey phyochangwen-i meympe-tul-ul special episode-INS be made middle Phy, Changwon-NOM member-PLR-ACC wihay thamceng, chwuli kyoyuk-ul hay sichengca-tul-uy for personal invistigator deduction education-ACC do-CONN viewer-PLR-GEN nwunki-lul kkul-ess-ta. Han yeseng-i samanghan saken-ul chwuliha-ta eyes-ACC attrack-PAST-WE one woman-NOM die case-ACC deduct-CONN cenghyengton-un tayhanminkwuk-un kwukka-ka kwukmin-i-pnita” Cheong, Hyungdon-NOM Korea-NOM nation-NOM people-COP-FDE Lako yenghwa ‘pyenhoin’ sok songkangho taysa-lul ttalahay-ss-ta. QUOT movie lawyer inside Song, Kangho line-ACC imitate-PAST-WE 38 The full articles of (98) can be seen at http://www.ahatv.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=223410 and http://www.newsen.com/news_view.php?uid=201101252226341001, respectively. 181 I-ey phyochangwe-nun “kwukmin-i kwukka-cyo” -lamye This-DIR Pyo, Changwon-NOM people-NOM nation-CDE-QUOT cenghyengton -uy taysa-lul cengcenghay-ss-ta. cenghyengton-uy Cheong, Hyungdon-GEN line-ACC correct-PAST-WE Cheong, Hyungdon-GEN Silswu-ey yucaysek-un “etise yenghwa po-n ke-n iss-e kaciko” Mistake-DIR Yu, Jaeseok-NOM where movie watch-NOMZ-EMP have-E KACIKO -lako tespwuthy-e sichengca-tul-uy usum-ul caanay-ss-ta. -QUOT add-CONN viewer-PLR-GEN laughter-ACC evoke-PAST-WE ‘The ‘Private Investigator’ episode of the MBC TV program ‘Infinite Challenge’ aired on the afternoon of February 8 th , 2014, and attracted many viewers because of Changwon Pyo’s appearance, in which he gave a lecture on “How to become a personal investigator” and deductive skills to the show’s panel. Hyungdon Cheong attempted to repeat Kangho Song’s famous quote from the movie ‘Lawyers’: ‘As for the republic of South Korea, the nation is the people.’ Hearing this, Changwon Pyo then corrected the quote, saying ‘The people are the nation, you know.’ Regarding Hyungdon Cheong’s mistake, Jaeseok Yu commented that ‘You saw things from the movie from out of nowhere – E KACIKO,’ a line that evoked joy in many viewers.’ SSTV, February 8, 2014 b. Hwangthayhuy-nun “nay-ka kumcanti-ya? Kkoch pota kwuyongsik Hwang, Taehee-NOM I-NOM Geum, Jandi-COP-CPINTR flower than Koo, Youngsik i-ya?”-lako malhay-ss-ta. tulama ‘kkochpota namca’-eyse kumcanti-nun COP-CPINTR-QUOT say-PAST-WE drama flower than man-SOC Geum, Jandi-NOM Chinkwu-tul-uy cilthwu-lul pat-a kakcong theyle-lul tangha-yss Friend-PLR-GEN jealousy-ACC receive-CONN various terror-ACC get harmed-PAST -ta. I-lul phayletiha-n kes-i-ta. Hwangthayhuy-nun “etise po-n ken -WE this-ACC parody-NOMZ-COP-WE Hwang, Taehee-NOM where see-NOMZ 182 Iss-e kaciko. yuchihakey”-lako tespwuthye-ss-ta. Have-E KACIKO childish-QUOT add-PAST-WE ‘Taehee Hwang said, ‘Am I Jandi Geum? Yongsik Gu over Flowers?’ In the TV drama ‘Boys Over Flowers,’ the character Jandi Geum made her friends jealous of her and was subsequently attacked by them. That was thus the parody aspect of the scene. Taehee Hwang then added, ‘You saw things from out of nowhere– E KACIKO. How childish.”’ Newsen, January 25, 2011 In (98), the article writers review two TV shows and describe two scenes from them. In (98a), one actor named Hyungdon Cheong makes a mistake when quoting a famous movie, and soon after the misspoken quote is corrected by Changwon Pyo. Jaeseok Yu then criticizes Hyungdon Cheong by expressing his judgmental sarcastic stance toward the mistake after observing it happen. As shown in (98b), the SCE e kaciko appears in a similar context. In the scene, the character of Taehee Hwang compares herself to the other character, Jandi Geum, in terms of how her acquaintances are jealous of her and how she is verbally attacked by them because she is loved by the popular guy Yongsik Gu. The male role of Yongsik Gu is similarly compared to the male character in the other drama, who is also very popular among women but who loves the female character Jandi Geum. That is, drama “A” includes a parody scene of drama “B.” The speaker in (98b) produces her speech as seen in the excerpt after seeing that her car is covered with eggs, and thereafter she expresses her attitude toward the addressee, who supposedly threw eggs at her car, in a sarcastic tone. In both excerpts, the literal meanings of the utterances including e kaciko are presented as the SCE e kaciko because it requires further elucidation. The utterances both convey the speakers’ sarcastic remarks. 183 However, the degree and tone of the sarcasm differs to some extent in each context. The difference between the two utterances mainly lies in the interpersonal relationship between the speaker and the addressee. Given that the interpersonal relationship in (98a) is very intimate, the sarcastic utterance in (98a) appears to be light criticism, or good-natured teasing, and thus induces the interlocutor or other participants to laugh it away. In particular, in (98a) the writer of the article provides the context indicating that the nature of the teasing results in the viewers’ laughs. This finding is in accordance with research findings illustrated in Sperber and Wilson (1981) and Jorgensen (1996) in that the victims of sarcasm often find utterances that contain a complaint or criticism as playful humor when the utterance deals with a trivial issue or mistake. If the addressee, the target of the sarcasm, tends to view it as funny, interesting, and less serious, that is, taking it as humor or ‘banter’ (Leech, 1983), then sarcasm may function to potentially establish solidarity between the speaker and the addressee, or even the other participants in the discourse, i.e., to add humor to interactions. It is noteworthy here that the context of (98a) in which the utterances and interactions are made is a comedy show. In contrast, (98b) concerns a more considerable degree of wrongdoing, whereby the speaker is directly harmed by the addressee’s act, i.e., ‘physically attacking the speaker’s car.’ Her sarcastic attitude is consequently read as stronger than one of simply expressing sarcasm to tease or mock the addressee. In addition, the interpersonal relationship between the speaker and addressee is not as intimate as those shown in (98a). Even though the victim of the sarcasm in (98b) is not present, the speaker criticizes what the addressee has done to her car and expresses a sarcastic attitude toward the victim of the sarcasm. Unlike in (98a), there is not much leeway to construe the utterance including e kaciko as good-natured teasing or humor. The speaker also adds a subsequent utterance that enhances her judgmental attitude toward the addressee as to how childish she is. Hence, the very similar utterances using the SCE e kaciko in both (79a) and (79b) result in different interpretations that reflect their respective degrees of seriousness. 184 (99) a. [How silly to see what you have done according to what] you saw things from out of nowhere! b. [How contemptuous to see what you have done according to what] you saw things from out of nowhere! The utterances embedding e kaciko in (98a) and (98b) can be interpreted as (99a) and (99b) respectively, and the pragmatic meanings of the SCE e kaciko are shown in the squared brackets. 6.7.3 Contextual factors As indicated in (99), the interpretations of the utterances are accompanied with an exclamation mark. According to Bloomfield (1933), exclamatory pitch is generally marked by stress in English, which also accords with general exclamatory utterances of Korean. However, the SCE e kaciko does not appear to mark a stressed pitch. Instead, the intonation of e kaciko is marked by a lowering of pitch. In addition, this type of sarcasm is also frequently found being practiced diversely by replacing the verb ‘to see’ with ‘to hear.’ See the following example. (100) Eti-se tul-un ken iss-e kaciko. Somewhere-SOC hear-NOMZ have-E KACIKO ‘[How silly to hear what you have done according to what]/ [How contemptuous to hear what you have said according to what] you heard things from out of nowhere!’ Like the verb pota ‘to see,’ the verb tutta ‘to hear’ concerns one’s perception. In example (100), the speaker sarcastically depreciates or disapproves of the addressee’s action or speech while assuming that the addressee picked up or learned the action or speech elsewhere. 185 6.7.4 Sarcasm and facework As discussed earlier, the pragmatic meaning of e kaciko can be construed as indicating the interpersonal relationships between the participants and the triviality of the given context. For example, despite the fact that the speaker intends to express sarcasm as a light joke, mockery, or form of teasing, it may be interpreted as serious threatening. In other words, decoding the speaker’s sarcasm is, after all, decided by the addressee. On such occasions, the victim of the sarcasm perhaps perceives the speaker’s utterance as a face-threatening act, and thus the addressee’s positive face is threatened. Due to the nature of the context-dependency, the use of e kaciko in contexts of sarcasm may result in denoting ambiguity, and therefore it may cause face- threatening effects in interaction to some extent. Therefore, this speech act of sarcasm is generally confined to intimates even when the sarcasm is meant to be simply teasing or a humorous remark because it inevitably threatens the addressee’s face and thus can be perceived as impolite. However, if sarcasm is made between non-intimates, it may function as a social act to straightforwardly express the speaker’s negative attitude toward the addressee. For example, in (98b), the speaker’s face is threatened, and thereby the speaker employs the sarcastic utterance. Therefore, e kaciko can be viewed as serving the particular pragmatic function of expressing her sarcastic attitude that is caused by an ‘intrusive’ (Stiles, 1981) interaction. As discussed thus far, e kaciko conveys the speaker’s sarcastic attitude toward the addressee, and it denotes varied degrees of sarcasm depending on the context. Therefore, the SCE e kaciko used in contexts of sarcasm may have contradictable functions as to its positive effects (humor, jokes, etc.) and negative effects (intrusive remarks, etc.). In the subsequent section, we shall delve into the nature of different contexts wherein the speaker expresses sarcasm with a purposely negative, or mean, intention. 186 6.8 Expressing the speaker’s grudge toward the addressee through innuendo Unlike the sarcastic stance discussed in Section 6.7, the way of expressing sarcasm that we will discuss in this section is rather indirect and more figurative in meaning. The second type of sarcasm conveyed by the SCE e kaciko is related to innuendo. Dictionaries define innuendo as indirect or subtle insinuation about a person or thing, indicating criticism or disapproval. Therefore, it has a disparaging nature akin to teasing and sarcasm that we discussed in the earlier section. 6.8.1 Innuendo toward the addressee on-site Let us first look at an example of sarcastic innuendo before we analyze a lengthy discourse. See the example below. (101) Kuce ip-man sal-a kaciko. Just mouth-only alive- E KACIKO ‘[I hereby express being sarcastic about the fact that] You are bold in words only!’ TV Drama, Goodbye Solo, Episode 1 The speaker utters (101) as a response to the interlocutor, who criticized a movie that the speaker and interlocutor had just finished watching together. Since the speaker is moved by the movie to the point that tears welled up in her eyes, his negative opinion about the movie obviously grates on her. Thereon, she expresses her unpleasant feeling toward him by mentioning (101). The co- texts of (101), including the prior utterance to (101) in the entire discourse, do not constitute sufficient grounds to judge if the interlocutor is in fact all talk and no action. Such being the case, we may conclude that he has given her an impression that he is a man of words and not of deeds. The idiomatic expression ipman salta ‘to be bold in words only’ itself contains a somewhat 187 sneering tone. In addition, she employs e kaciko to enhance her sarcastic attitude toward him, and the pragmatic meaning of e kaciko can be interpreted as shown in the squared bracket in (101). Therefore, the use of e kaciko enables the speaker to deliver the content by implying her intention of uttering it. In the interaction therein the interlocutor is invited to infer what the speaker implies beyond the message itself since it rather emerges as allusive and subtle, and thus he needs to rely on other contextual factors such as shared knowledge. It is noteworthy that sarcasm expressed by innuendo is greatly related to the connective e kaciko that appears in adversative contexts. As elucidated in Section 5.6.1, e kaciko carries the speaker’s surprise when she or he spots a contradiction regarding the addressee’s appearance, personality, or qualifications. By contrast, in (101) the speaker does not only refer to the immediate context, i.e., he criticizes the movie, but also implicitly makes an innuendo about the general behaviors that have been observed. In addition, the sarcasm in (101) is less likely involved with counter-expectations, unlike the use of the connective e kaciko. 6.8.2 Innuendo toward the addressee off-site The conversation below was made between a man (Speaker A) and his girlfriend (Speaker B). They are talking about an absent 3 rd person named Suhee, who is a friend of Speaker B. Observe the following example: (102) A1: Na-n kyay cengmal silh-e. Kicipay-ka ssulteyepsi khi-nun meltay I-NOM the kid really dislike CPE Girl-NOM pointlessly height NOM beanpole -chelem khe kaciko. -like tall-E KACIKO ‘I really hate her! [I’m not happy about the fact that] ‘She is as tall as a tree!’ B1: Nay-ka bwa-to ne-n swuhuy cheum-pwuthe cayswueps-e ha-tela 188 I NOM see-CONN you NOM Swuhuy at first-from nauseous-appear to-RPT:CP ‘I’ve noticed that you seem nauseous ever since you first met Suhee.’ TV Drama, Goodbye Solo, Episode 1 Not content with outwardly expressing his emotion toward the friend, Suhee, as seen in the first sentence of (A1), Speaker A thereafter talks about her physical trait (height) by using e kaciko. More specifically, the embedded implicature in (A1) is that the speaker is being sarcastic about the fact that the girl is tall. How is the interlocutor in this case successfully induced to discern sarcasm? First, it is mainly carried by the ending e kaciko. Moreover, in addition to the use of e kaciko, she can even more clearly pick up on the sarcasm by the use of the vocabulary kicipay, ssulteyepsi, and meltay, all of which have negative connotations. Note that Speaker B seems to have been aware that Speaker A dislikes the girl; if this were not the case, then Speaker B might ask Speaker A the question such as “Why?” or “What does her tall height have to do with you?” to clarify the situation that Speaker A makes innuendos about Suhee’s tall height out of the blue. To our common knowledge, loathing someone due to the person’s tall height does not seem logical, or at the very least it would require some particular context. B1, however, is immediately uttered to provide such a context through which to understand the situation, and thereby facilitate the discourse. Two speakers seem to share knowledge that is very specific to both of them about the girl named Suhee. That is, Speaker B knows why Speaker A sneers about the addressee’s height. He has been holding a grudge toward the addressee since she did not show a favorable attitude toward him at first. Speaker B is able to catch the real intention of A’s employing e kaciko because she is aware of the fact that Speaker A dislikes Suhee. In other words, the context is already provided to interpret the sarcasm in Speaker A’s utterance about ‘her being tall,’ which would not necessarily be considered a negative characteristic. Likewise, to properly interpret utterances or any particular linguistic element, such as e kaciko here, it is essential to understand interpersonal knowledge as well. It should be noted 189 that shared knowledge can be either related to the social dimension or exist on a personal, or rather interpersonal, basis. A. Hostile or polite? Speaking of sarcasm, the speaker is usually motivated to make such a remark because of a criticism or complaint he or she holds against the victim, even though that fact is not always expressed by the remark. (103) Kicipay-ka ssulteyepsi khi-nun meltay-chelem khe kaciko. Girl-NOM pointlessly height NOM beanpole-like tall-E KACIKO ‘I really hate her! [I’m not happy about the fact that] ‘She is as tall as a tree!’ (excerpted from the example (83)) TV Drama, Goodbye Solo, Episode 1 With respect to the pragmatic nature of e kaciko, the SCE e kaciko enables the speaker in (103) to allusively deliver his attitude toward the addressee by uttering “She is as tall as a tree - E KACIKO.” This utterance is construable as ‘[I hereby express being sarcastic about the fact that] she is as tall as a tree.’ In the utterances above, e kaciko commonly attaches to clauses that describe someone else’s physical traits, which here are the person’s appearance and height; however, the utterances themselves indicate the different attitudes of the speakers. The speaker in (103) clearly expresses his hostile attitude toward the addressee and indeed makes innuendos about her height to emphasize the fact that he loathes and sneers at her. Ironically enough, expressing sarcasm using innuendo and e kaciko here is regarded as a type of polite strategy. That is, the speaker subtly implies the severity of his hostile stance without uttering it outwardly, and this speech act is practiced by using e kaciko. In other words, the deployment of e kaciko allows the speaker to refrain from uttering the true pragmatic meaning of 190 the utterance. Therefore, e kaciko plays the role of pragmatic tool to soften or mitigate the negative face-threatening effects of the speaker’s utterance. In addition, the interlocutor, who is a close friend of the victim of the sarcasm in this example, might feel face-threatened by sensing discomfort for the addressee as well as noticing the speaker’s crudeness. Despite the fact that this conversation includes some very serious and offensive utterances, the intimate relationship between the two interlocutors enables such an exchange to happen. Likewise, to properly interpret the use of e kaciko here, an understanding of the interpersonal relationship between the two interlocutors is necessary; it is this interpersonal relationship which decides how the language is expressed. 6.8.3 Innuendo in asymmetrical relationships In the previous sections, we analyzed two discourses in which the relationships between speakers and addressee are relatively symmetrical in terms of their ages. In this section, we shall examine a discourse that allows us to observe turn-taking between speakers in asymmetrical relationships, which are different from those represented by the interactions of (101) and (102). Therefore, we will analyze how the SCE e kaciko is employed for the purpose of expressing the speaker’s sarcasm toward a senior interlocutor. (104) A1:Him an nay- nunkey na-yo. Kuma appa-n ku salam-i Energy NGE get-NOMZ better-CDE Kuma’s dad-NOM the person-NOM him hanpenssik nay-l ttaymata chin sako-ka elma-nteyyo "~ energy once get-each time make trouble-NOM how much-CDE ‘Kuma’s dad (who is A1’s husband) better not cheer up. Every time he cheers up, he makes trouble.’ B1: (xx) 191 A2: Kunyang teisang sako-man chi-ci mal-lakwu hay-yo. Just no more trouble-only make-NEG-QUOT do-CDE Ce-nun kuke isang palace-twu anh-eyo. Mek-kwu sa-nunke n cey I-NOM that thing more than wish-even NEG-CDE eat-CONN live-NOMZ Cey-ka cikum-chelem haswuk chi-myen ettukhatun mek-kwu I-NOM now-like boarding house run-CONN somehow eat-CONN Sal-theynikkayo Live-CDE ‘The only thing I wish (about him) is that he doesn’t get into any more trouble. We can live somehow off of running the boarding house.’ B2: hhh (: :) cha---m thullin mal-un ani-nti mal i ---ppukey he-n-ta hhh INTJ truly wrong saying-NOM not- CONN saying beautifully do-PRS-CPE INTJ ‘There is nothing wrong with your saying that, but how you’re saying it is so charming.’ A3: hhh INTJ ((Speaker A is walking ahead of Speaker B)) A4: ((talking to herself)) Nwuka phakimchi-nun tallay-ss-takwu (.) saynghwalpi Who green onion Kimchi-NOM give-PAST-QUOT living expense -na com akkyessu-ci. Son-man phwucye kaciko. -INTS a little conserve-CPE hand-only plentiful-E KACIKO ‘Who asked for green onion Kimchi?! She should have used her living expenses more sparingly.’ ‘[I hereby express being sarcastic about the fact that ] She’s such a lavish spender!’ TV Drama, Gwutseyera Gumsuna, Episode 2 192 In A1 and A2, a daughter-in-law (Speaker A) is blaming her husband in front of her mother-in- law (Speaker B). Throughout the conversation, it is noticeable that Speaker B says very little, and indeed the utterances are simple responses, whereas Speaker A’s utterances are remarkably long. However, Speaker B seems displeased with Speaker A, and expresses this displeasure with silence in B1. Although Speaker B cannot disagree with Speaker A, she cannot help but feel discomfort because the addressee of the reproach is her son. In B2, Speaker B finally expresses her complaints toward Speaker A by expressing that Speaker A ‘so charmingly’ criticizes Speaker B’s son in front of her. Apparently, ‘so charmingly’ is a twisted remark for expressing ‘so horribly.’ Therefore, Speaker A gets upset because Speaker B refuses to show sympathy for Speaker A even though she appeals to Speaker B for it. Thereafter, Speaker B walks ahead of Speaker A, and she is left alone. Speaker A thereby criticizes Speaker B with respect to her behavior. That is, Speaker A makes innuendos about Speaker B’s making green onion Kimchi. As a matter of fact, the behavior of ‘making green onion Kimchi’ is a fact noticed presently and thus not directly relevant to the current discussion. By employing innuendo, Speaker A intends to make a sneering remark about Speaker B’s indiscreet act, particularly related to spending money, which is one of her current worries. Moreover, Speaker A’s utterances given across the discourse before B2 are all grievances about Speaker A’s husband (=Speaker B’s son) in terms of his financial incompetence. Hence, Speaker A’s use of innuendo appears to be deeply relevant to the entire discourse in a greater sense. As we discussed with the previous examples of (101) and (102), e kaciko here analogously functions to convey sarcasm in addition to its grammatical function as a SCE, and its pragmatic meaning is construed as ‘I hereby express being sarcastic about the fact that~.’ In this particular discourse, as illustrated in A4, the sarcastic utterance is created as self-talk. 193 6.8.4 Use of the deferential ending yo Including the above uses of e kaciko discussed thus far, the corpus data revealed that utterances concluded by e kaciko are must not include the deferential ending yo. In the preceding sections, we examined the emergence of the deferential ending yo across various contexts and how the speaker chooses to be perceived in interactions in terms of the respective sociocultural context. Let us observe the following examples: (105) a. *Sensayngnim-un ku yayki-lul ettehkey tul-e kaciko-yo. Teacher-NOM that story-ACC how hear-E KACIKO-CDE ‘[It’s frustrating that] You (=teacher) heard about it!’ b. *Nwuka phakimchi-nun tallay-ss-takwu (.) saynghwalpi-na Who green onion Kimchi-NOM request-PAST QUOT living expense-INTS com akkyessu-ci. Son-man phwucye kaciko yo. a little conserve-CPE hand-only plentiful- E KACIKO CDE ‘Who asked for green onion Kimchi?! She should have used her living expenses more sparingly. [I hereby blame (her) for the fact that] She’s so generous (with her spending)!’ In Korean, the deferential style is applied depending on the seniority or social status of the conversing individuals. Thus, in both examples in (105), the ending yo is supposedly appropriate for both a teacher and a mother-in-law, because a mother-in-law is usually older than a daughter- in-law, and teachers are generally socially admired regardless of their age. As indicated in (105), however, the deferential ending yo should be neglected. This is because the utterances include the speaker’s direct feeling that bluntly expresses sarcasm or frustration toward the mother-in-law and teacher, respectively. To this end, the speakers decide to comprise self-talk to let the negative judgmental utterances achieve indirectness. Thereby the speakers’ positive face is preserved. 194 This can be understood better when we reflect on the fact that because of the unique sociocultural schematic knowledge in Korea, it is very difficult to be socially accepted while making bold statements out loud in front of one’s seniors or elders, especially when those statements are directly related to them. Therefore, we may conclude that these sort of utterances are less likely to invite the hearer, and more likely to comprise self-talk. 6.9 Social self and intersubjectivity Indeed, language use in general is determined by social status, such as the rank or position that each interlocutor may hold in a group, any age difference, and the degree of intimacy between the interlocutors. This linguistic phenomenon informs us of the delicate relationship between language forms, particular contexts, and the users of the language. Likewise, knowledge of the language system can be pragmatically activated as appropriate along with identifying the schematic knowledge and relevant frames for interpretation. Through the analyses on the SCE e kaciko in this chapter, we examined that the tokens marked by e kaciko are frequently realized as self-talk, including all types of sarcastic utterances. This language use is in accordance with what Traugott (2003) discusses as the ‘social self’ and the expression of intersubjectivity: Intersubjective is the explicit expression of the SP/W’s attention to the ‘self’ of addressee / reader in both an epistemic sense (paying attention to their presumed attitudes to the content of what is said) and in a more social sense (paying attention to their ‘face’ or ‘image needs’ associated with social stance and identity) (Traugott 2003:128) Therefore, expressing sarcasm through the SCE e kaciko in self-talk indicates that the speaker considers her ‘self’ in terms of her attitude toward both the content of what she is talking about 195 and her relationship with her interlocutor. Let us borrow the interlocutors from excerpt (104), a daughter in-law and mother-in-law. Thereby, the choice of using an ‘e kaciko utterance’ reflects intersubjectivity to a greater extent because it is a way of expressing sarcasm in accordance with sustaining the need for face and the social self of the speaker who created the utterance including e kaciko as well as the mother-in-law. Moreover, the social aspect of intersubjectivity greatly relies on the speaker’s perception of the relationship between the speaker and the interlocutor or addressee in interaction. The daughter-in-law perceives that her social self is guaranteed to feel secure enough to express her feelings, and therefore she can keep her positive image or reputation in accordance with sociocultural norms, beliefs, and the like. Therefore, the speaker ‘daughter-in-law’ would likely not have produced the e kaciko utterance if the addressee had still been around her, given her relationship with the victim of the sarcasm in the Korean sociocultural context. Such being the case, the e kaciko utterance is less likely to invite the hearer, and more likely to comprise self-talk. Interestingly, here the daughter- in-law chooses to be somewhat disrespectful by expressing a sarcastic attitude while still avoiding a potentially face-threatening act and anticipating a frictionless or conflict-free social act. Across the corpus data, it was revealed that sarcasm marked by e kaciko tends to reflect the Korean speakers’ preference. That is, the speaker expresses sarcasm by using innuendo about the addressee’s physical traits or behaviors, as the prior examples also prove. Despite the fact that English translations of the expressions are given differently from the Korean texts due to their idiomatic nature, it is worth noting that the Korean expressions commonly contain vocabulary related to physical traits, i.e., ‘only one’s mouth is alive; to be as tall as a tree; to have prodigal hands’ The expressions comprise innuendo about the addressee’s mouth, height, and hands, and such linguistic choices are generally derogatory in nature. So far, we have discussed two types of sarcasm: (a) sarcastic humors and jokes, and (b) sarcasm based in innuendo. The results of the analyses suggest that interpreting sarcasm marked by the SCE e kaciko is highly context-dependent, including sociocultural schemata such as 196 interpersonal relations, and that e kaciko effectively plays a pragmatic role in performing the related speech acts. 6.10 Summary We have analyzed various discourses where the grammatical construction e kaciko appears at the end of a sentence. Across the corpus, we observed that the SCE e kaciko was mostly distributed in negative contexts and that the speakers expressed a negative stance therein. E kaciko serving as a SCE creates two possible pragmatic meanings on a broader scale: (a) frustration-based emotions and (b) sarcasm, which are both related to troublesome contexts. In accordance with the various contexts, four types of meanings are realized which have specific and differentiated characteristics. With respect to contexts of frustration, speakers expressed a particular stance according to the addressee or the content being said. First, e kaciko was found in contexts in which the speaker felt frustrated about encountering some incident that did not accord with her or his expectations and wishes. Such negatively driven situations were presumably yielding negative consequences, and thereupon the speaker uttered her or his frustrations outwardly, talking to him/herself via self-talk. Second, the speaker indicated a regretful feeling about what she or he had already done that cannot now be changed. Therefore, e kaciko in these cases indicates that the speaker is expressing self-disappointment and frustration about the negative situation in which she or he is placed. Third, the speaker expressed her or his lamentable state of being toward the addressee with regard to what he or she had done. In particular, e kaciko also implied criticism in contexts where the addressee’s reproachable behavior harmed someone. In such negative contexts the speaker showed an empathetic attitude toward the victim although the consequences did not directly affect the speaker. Fourth, the speaker expressed frustration toward the addressee (either as a 2 nd or 3 rd person) in contexts where the addressee directly caused some negative effect on the 197 speaker. Therefore, e kaciko was deployed in such cases to convey the speaker’s complaint and discontent. In contexts of sarcasm, the SCE e kaciko comprises two pragmatic functions. When the interactions are made between intimates, the sarcastic utterances created by using e kaciko contribute a positive effect to the discourse and thereby the target of the sarcasm is likely to interpret it as humor. On the other hand, we also elucidated contexts where the speaker makes innuendos about the target of sarcasm, usually by including idiomatic expressions or lexical choices that have negative connotations. Since this type of sarcasm illustrated less immediacy but higher degrees of sarcasm, e kaciko often comprised self-talk in such cases, especially when the addressee was a senior. I have discussed how the SCE e kaciko comprises discourses involved with the speaker’s stance and a variety of given contexts. The contexts can refer to what has already happened at the hands of a 1 st , 2 nd or 3 rd person, or even ‘outsourced’ or non-human actors (e.g., the weather, North Korea) and could not be changed. As a consequence, although such troublesome contexts may or may not affect the speaker’s unpleasant feelings, the SCE e kaciko thereby expresses the speaker’s sarcasm, regret, pity, lamentableness, criticism, complaints, and frustration, etc., toward the particular situation or context. The pragmatic meanings of e kaciko cannot be described as a single word. Instead they are illustrated through the expressions given in the squared brackets, such as: ‘How silly to see that~,’ ‘Hereby I express being sarcastic about the fact that~,’ ‘Hereby I express my regret that~,’ ‘Hereby I lament the fact that~,’ and ‘Hereby I express being frustrated by the fact that~,’ etc. I also demonstrated that communication participants interact with each other by encoding and decoding meanings in contexts where e kaciko appears. When such implicatures and inferences are successfully realized, schematic knowledge is at play. To account for the role of schemata in discourse, we examined examples of e kaciko utterances and the given discourses. To 198 sum up, therefore, we hereby are able to characterize the critical nature of discourses where e kaciko conveys various pragmatic meanings. First, we revealed that utterances using e kaciko when expressing the speaker’s frustration-based emotions must co-occur with interjection wh-word way ‘why’ in cases of adding emphasis to the utterance. Second, the deferential ending yo is never allowed in utterances ending with e kaciko. That is because e kaciko is used in contexts where the speaker’s negative stance is directed only at intimates who are friends or younger than the speaker. Or, even if the addressee is a senior, the negative stance may still be expressed; however, given the sociocultural norms and other ‘face’ related issues, the speaker will likely choose to express such a stance as self-talk. Therefore, the speaker who utters e kaciko is less likely to anticipate the interlocutor’s response or presuppose their existence in the process of discourse. In addition, when she or he utters such statements, substantial pauses may follow after e kaciko if the utterance is succeeded by another sentence, and such uses of e kaciko can often be accented if they are intended to further emphasize the accompanying emotion. 199 CHAPTER 7 CONCLUDING REMARKS 7.1 Conclusion This dissertation examined the Korean construction e kaciko in authentic Korean spoken discourse produced by Korean native speakers, thus constituting pioneering work on the construction e kaciko because it is among the first to analyze e kaciko as functioning not only as a connective, but also as a SCE. The present study also is the first to reveal the many diverse applications of the connective e kaciko, whereas previous studies mostly discussed only the semantic functions of e kaciko, including its sequential and causal functions. The development of diverse applications of e kaciko, from its use as a connective to that of a SCE, strongly suggest that language change and implicatures play a major role in language change, eliciting syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic changes. The results of this original research help us to better understand the pragmatic nature of e kaciko as being generated from the speaker’s intention of expressing his/her attitude, thoughts toward the content (what is being said) and/or the addressee, politeness strategies, social acts, and other related schemata in discourse. Drawing on the current findings, it is reasonable to conclude that the frequent use of e kaciko over time in particular contexts accumulates and becomes schematized, resulting in new categories of pragmatic functions for e kaciko. The nature of utterances ending in e kaciko coincides with the negative nature of utterances that contain the connective form of e kaciko. In other words, by adopting functional shifts from the connective e kaciko to the SCE e kaciko, the critical nature of discourse in which the connective e kaciko appears has apparently been transmitted to discourses in which the SCE e kaciko emerges. As for negative contexts, the distribution tendencies of the connective e kaciko became more densely 200 accentuated, resulting in the implication of a negative stance, such as frustration, regret, criticism, resentment, teasing, and severe sarcasm, through the deployment of the SCE e kaciko. We also learned that many pragmatic meanings of e kaciko are already well established. Therefore, it is difficult to interpret all of the types of utterances containing e kaciko using single words or concepts. Thus, those pragmatic meanings were presented as phrases and clauses. It must be also addressed that the connective use of e kaciko in performing speech acts, i.e., ‘making a request’ and ‘making a refusal,’ shaped different types of discourses compared with other discourses viz. 1) when expressing the speaker’s personal associations toward sequential relations, 2) when expressing the speaker’s regret or pity toward a negative consequence, 3) when blaming the addressee with regard to a negative consequence, 4) when asking for the interlocutor’s understating in troublesome situations, 5) when expressing the speaker’s surprise in adversative contexts, and 6) when projecting the speaker’s judgmental opinion in conditional contexts. To elaborate, I found that the way of displaying utterances to perform ‘requests’ and ‘refusals’ was neither based on scrambled word order nor simply slurring the utterance. Instead, the utterance type lead the recipient to follow an inclusive process to decipher the message as well as the implied intention; and, the interlocutor must be a competent Korean speaker who is equipped with the pragmatic knowledge of e kaciko. It was an interesting journey to analyze how e kaciko is realized in the critical dimensions of communication and meaning negotiation, especially in Korean cultural contexts, which are also immensely shaped by interpersonal relations viz. degrees of intimacy and formality, and the social positions and ages of the interlocutors. The very distinctive pragmatic nature of e kaciko was once more examined by comparing the use of the connective e kaciko with the connective ese. Overall, the findings of the present study are as follows: (1) The construction e kaciko is exceedingly frequent in more informal and intimately constructed discourses; 201 (2) E kaciko demonstrates its pragmatic meanings that enable speakers to participate in communication and social actions more smoothly and effectively, with diverse applications; (3) E kaciko as a connective takes place in the performance of various speech acts, such as the functions of apologizing, advising, complaining, projecting opinions, requesting, and refusing in sequential, causal, adversative, and conditional contexts; (4) The SCE use of e kaciko has two pragmatic meanings on a broader scale: (a) sarcasm and (b) frustration-based emotions; (5) The SCE use of e kaciko expressing sarcasm functions to ‘create humorous mockeries between intimates’ and to ‘make innuendos about the target of the sarcasm’; (6) The SCE e kaciko expressing frustration functions to express ‘regretful feelings about what the 1 st person did,’ ‘a piteous attitude toward what a 2 nd or 3 rd person did,’ and ‘negative incidents’; (7) Both the connective and SCE uses of e kaciko are frequently found in negative contexts; (8) In negative contexts, e kaciko is employed with the intention of (a) emphasizing the negative situation and anticipating an ‘empathetic listener,’ and/or (b) mitigating face- threatening acts by taking strategies of politeness and/or indirecteness; and, (9) The use of e kaciko is greatly associated with sociocultural schemata. In addition to these findings on the multifold functions and meanings that e kaciko achieves, this study also pointed out some characterizations of the discourses in which e kaciko appears. With respect to the negative contexts in which e kaciko is used, (a) the collocational uses of certain vocabulary containing negative connotations and (b) a constraint against the occurrence of the deferential ending yo, i.e., comprising self-talk, were clarified. As evidenced by analyzing corpus data containing e kaciko, I demonstrated that the activation of schemata is not always smooth. That is, some strands of schemata compete to eliminate the pragmatic ambiguity caused by the connective e kaciko. 202 The analyses of the construction e kaciko in this dissertation embody the quintessential Korean language and its use, which will shed light on many unsolved or overlooked issues including why a speaker produces an utterance that employs the particular grammatical construction at that very moment in a conversation with that particular interactant? That is, the grammatical phenomena captured in the functional shift from lexical items to grammatical items, and from connectives to SCEs, have contributed substantially to the development of grammatical categories such as particles, connectives, and SCEs in the Korean grammatical system. More importantly, while undergoing this process of functional shift, newly created constructions acquire new implicatures and thus establish pragmatic functions such as implying illocutionary and/or perlocutionary meanings instead of being confined to denoting only locutionary meanings. Accordingly, using particular constructions enables speakers to convey meanings containing subjectivity and/or intersubjectivity in a more ‘social sense.’ Therefore, language use is inevitably associated with strands of schematic knowledge including the interpersonal relationships between participants and sociocultural factors related to the content, etc. 7.2 Implications for further study Drawing on the findings of this study, I hereby provide some suggestions for further research. As noted previously, it is necessary to focus our attention to building a system of grammar for spoken Korean so that it can provide second and foreign language learners with sufficient knowledge to eliminate the discrepancies resulting in confusion between what they encounter in their textbooks and real, actual everyday use of Korean. Therefore, subsequent research should focus on the following aspects of e kaciko. First, although this dissertation is only concerned with synchronic data related to the construction e kaciko in present-day Korean, a brief review of historical corpus data reveals that the connective e kaciko was used to indicate both sequential and causal relationships. For 203 example, the causal connective e kaciko appeared in the 19 th century literary work Mwulyangka. Therefore, subsequent studies may depart from this example and further explore historical corpora to reveal what processes the construction e kaciko has been undergoing, as well as what additional functions it has acquired. Thereby, we will be able to approach the paths of grammaticalization and pragmaticalization in greater detail by examining discourses in which e kaciko is associated. Second, we can examine the pragmatic uses of e kaciko in the study of L2 acquisition. To this end, it would be useful to conduct experiments on learners of Korean to collect data that shows how well and differently L2 learners have acquired e kaciko in diverse contexts. In addition, it is possible to suggest important pedagogical issues and implications based on the synthesis of research findings related to L2 acquisition with the findings of the present study. Moreover, such research may include examinations and reviews of how current Korean textbooks deal with the introduction, description, and use of e kaciko. As e kaciko has received little attention in traditional studies of Korean linguistics, we can expect that the acquisition of the pragmatic applications of e kaciko is quite difficult for L2 learners. Third, further research on other spoken expressions that reflect speakers’ actual intentions will help contribute to the more overarching goal of establishing a spoken Korean grammar. To date, there are only a limited number of studies that have explicitly focused on language use as social acts by taking into account discourse-pragmatic factors drawing on the important role of the schemata therein. Furthermore, studies on language use are largely applicable to both language learning and language teaching. Therefore, a discourse analysis on the pragmatic use of spoken expressions will provide second and foreign language learners with sufficient knowledge to eliminate the discrepancies and resulting confusion between their textbooks and real, actual everyday use of Korean. For example, we may conduct studies on how Korean connectives and endings are used with respect to social interaction. In this regard, it can be further discussed why the speaker chooses to frame the content of ‘what is said’ in a particular way, and what pragmatic 204 inferences the speaker intended and how any hidden meanings are decoded by the interlocutor, and so on. Fourth, it must be stressed that in the general context of teaching and learning Korean as a world language, as learners of Korean approach more advanced levels, they in fact need to be exposed to the various types of available discourses and contexts that are indeed authentic and thus inevitable. However, to date learners are taught and well-trained to be polite and communicative interactants within restrictively designed discourses. For example, current Korean textbooks do not enable learners to learn how to create sarcastic utterances, humorous remarks or responses, or how to comprise self-talk when required. In other words, advanced Korean learners aiming to be successful communicators should acquire particular ways of speaking with reference to not only how to follow norms such as Grice’s CP, but also how to effectively violate Grice’s maxims to better express their intentions, genuine feelings, and attitudes toward the message content and/or the addressee. In this regard, the findings and discussions presented in the present study can definitely strengthen the basis of studies on the actual use of Korean in discourse and related pedagogical research. I will close by emphasizing once again the importance of a pragmatic-discourse approach as well as the role of schematic knowledge in foreign language learning and teaching. Above all, it cannot be emphasized enough that a language system must be learned at the level of discourse. As has been pointed out in this dissertation, language learning is inseparable from the acquisition of schemata, including sociocultural contexts. In addition, we should not neglect the fact that grammar cannot be divorced from its contexts, including the language users themselves, which simultaneously shape, and are shaped, by communication. 205 Bibliography Ahn, J. H. 2004. Hankwuke kyoyukeyseuy emi ceysi swunse yenkwu (A Study on the Teaching Order of Korean Connective Endings). Journal of Paytalmalhakhoy: Paytalmal, 34, pp. 271- 296. Ahn. J. H. 2006. A studying of connecting ending -myense in Korean. Studies in Modern Grammar, 45, pp. 179-198. Aijmer, K. 2013. Understanding pragmatic markers: A variational pragmatic approach. Edinburgh University Press. Allott, N. 2010. Key terms in pragmatics. Continuum International Publishing Group. Arie, V. 2005. Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Atkinson, M. and Heritage, J. (Eds). 1984. Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Austin, J. 1962 and 1970. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon. Bazzanella, C. 2011. Redundancy, repetition, and intensity in discourse. Language Sciences, 33, pp. 243-254. Bailey, B. 2000. Communicative behavior and conflict between African-American customers and Korean immigrant retailers in Los Angeles. Discourse and Society, 11 (1), pp. 86-108. Baker, P. and Ellege, S. 2011. Key terms in discourse analysis. Continuum International Publishing Group. Bartlett, Frederic C. 1932. Remembering: a study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biber, D. 2004. Historical Patterns for the Grammatical Marking of Stance: A Cross-Register Comparison. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 5 (1), pp. 107-36. Blackmore, D. 1989. Denial and Contrast: A Relevance theoretic Analysis of BUT. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12 (1). pp. 15-37. Boyland, J. 1996. Morphosyntactic Change in Progress: A psycholinguistic approach. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Berkeley. Brinton, L. 2008. The Comment Clause in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, P and Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. 1978. Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In: Goody, E. (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–310. 206 Brown, P. and Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some language universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bybee, J. 2009. Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure: Cognitive process in Grammaticalization. The new psychology of language, Vol. 2. Taylor & Francis e-Library, pp. 145-168. Bybee, J. 2002. Mechanism of change in grammaticalization: The role of repetition. In Handbook of historical linguistics. R.J. & B. Joseph (Eds.), Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 602-623. Bybee, J. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82 (4). John Bemjamins. Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology: a Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bybee, J. and Hopper, P. 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Typological studies in language, 45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bybee, J, and Paul H. (Eds.), 2002. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins Bybee, J. Perkins, R. and Pagliuca, W. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Carrell, P. and Eisterhold, J. 1983. Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 17(4), pp. 553-574. Carrell, P.L. 1983. Some issues in studying the role of schemata, or background knowledge, in second language comprehension. Paper presented at the 17th Annual TESOL Convention, Toronto, Canada. Celce-Murcia, M. and Olshtain, E. 2000. Discourse and Context in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Celle, A. and Haurt, R. (Eds.), 2007. Connectives as Discourse Landmarks. John Benjamin publishing company. Cook, G. 1989. Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Choi, C. H. 1992. kwuke uy chepsokmun kwuseng yenkw (A study of Korean conjunctive structures). Seoul: Thap Publisher. Choi, J.H. 1991. Kwukeuy cepsokmwun kwuseng yenkwu (Studies on the structure of Korean connectives). Seoul: Thap Publisher. Choi, H.P. 1961, 1977. Wulimalpon (The Korean Grammar). Seoul: Cheongumsa. [First published in 1929] Cole, P. 1975. The synchronic and diachronic status of conversational implicature. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (Eds.), Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 257–88. Cole, P. (Ed.), 1981. Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. 207 Cook, G. 1989. Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cook, G. 2003. Applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Kortmann, B. (Eds.), 2000. Cause, Condition, Concession, Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gryuter. Crevels, M. 2000. Concessives on different semantic levels. In Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Kortmann, B. (Eds.), Cause, Condition, Concession, Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gryuter, pp. 313–339. Cumming, S and Ono, T. 1997. Discourse and grammar In: T.A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as Structure and Process. London: Sage, pp. 112-137. Cutting, I. 2002. Pragmatics and Discourse. London: Routledge. Dancygier, B. & Sweetser, E. 2000. Construction with if, since, and because: Causality, epistemic stance, and clause order. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause,Condition, Concession, Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gryuter, pp. 111–142. Deborah, T. 1990. You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: Ballantine. Drew, P. 1998. Complaints about transgressions and misconduct. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 31 (3-4), pp. 295-325. Dehe and Kavalova. 2006. The syntax, pragmatics, and prosody of parenthetical ‘what.’ Cambridge University Press. Eddy, R. Pragmatics: Communication, interaction, and discourse. In Kasher, A. (Ed.), Speech Acts, Discourse Structure, and Pragmatic Connective, pp. 431-447. Eder, D. 1990. Serious and playful disputes: Variation in conflict talk among female adolescents. In: Grimshaw, A. D. (Ed.), Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 67-84. Eisenberg, A. 1986. Teasing: verbal play in two Mexicano homes. In: Schieffelin, B.B. and Ochs, E. (Eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 183-198. Ellwood, C. 2004. Discourse and desire in a second language classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Technology Sydney. Ellwood. C. 2009. Uninhabitable identifications: Unpacking the production of racial difference in a TESOL classroom. In R. Kubota and A. M. Y. Lin (Eds.), Race, Culture, and Identities in Second-Language Education. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 101- 117. Englebretson, R. (Ed.), 2007. Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Fraser, B. 1990. Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14 (2), pp. 219-236. 208 Fraser, B. and Nolan, W. 1981. The association of deference with linguistic form. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, pp. 93-109. Freedman, A. 1999. ‘Beyond the text: Towards understanding the teaching and learning of genres.’ TESOL Quarterly, 33, pp. 764-768. Gabriele Kasper. 1990. Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics 14, pp. 193-218. Geyer, N. 2008. Discourse and politeness: Ambivalent face in Japanese. London/ New York: Continuum. Givón, T. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press. Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Garden City. Goffman, E. 1967. On Face-Work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. In Interaction Ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Anchor Books. pp. 5-46 Goffman, E. 1972. On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction, In Laver. J. and Hutcheson. S. (Eds.), Communication in face-to-face interaction. Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp.179-196. Goffman, E. 1983. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Goody, E. 1978. Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction. Cambridge University press. Goody, E. (Ed.). 1978. Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge Papers in Social Anthropology 8. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation in P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (Eds). Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press. Grice, H. P. 1967/ 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, Peter and Jerry Morgen (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41-58. Haiman, J. 1994. Ritualization and the development of language. In Pagliuca, W. (Ed.), Perspectives on grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 3-28. Halliday, M. 1991. The notion of “context” in language education. In T. Le and M. McCausland (Eds.), Language education: International developments. Pp. 4-26. Halliday, M. and James, Z. 1993. A quantitative study of polarity and primary tense in the English finite clause. In Sinclair, J, Hoey, M. and Fox, G. (Eds.), Techniques of description, spoken and written discourse. London: Routledge, pp. 32–66. Hedge, T. 2000. Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heine, B. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Wischer and Diewald, (Eds.), pp. 83-101. 209 Heine, B., Claudi, U., and Hünnemeyer, F. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Heine and Kuteva. 2002. The Transition to Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heine, B., and Reh, M. 1984. Grammaticalization and reananalysis in African languages. Hamburg: Buske Heine, B., Ulrike, C. and Hünnemeyer, F. 1991. Grammaticalization: a Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hengeveld, K. 1989. Layers and operators in Functional Grammar. Journal of Linguistics,25 (1), pp. 127–157. Hill, B., Ide, S., Ikuta, S., Kawasaki, A. and Ogino, T. 1986. Universals of linguistic politeness: quantitative evidence from Japanese and American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 10 (3), pp. 347-371. Holmes, J. 1995. Women, men and politeness. New York: Longman. Holmes, J. and Stubbe, M. 2003. Power and Politeness in the Workplace: A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Talk at Work. London: Longman. Hopper, P. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In Traugott, E. C., and Heine, B. (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 17-35. Hopper, P. and Thompson, S.A. 1980. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language 56, pp. 251-295. Hopper, P. and Thompson, S. 1984. The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language 60 (4), pp. 703-752. Hopper, P. and Traugott, E. 1993. Grammaticalization. England: Cambridge University Press. Hopper, P. and Traugott, E. 2003. Grammaticalization. UK: Cambridge University Press. Hughes, R. and McCarthy, M. 1998. From Sentence to Discourse: Discourse Grammar and English Language Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 32. Issue 2, pp. 263-287. Im, K.H. 1994. About e kaciko. Baedalmal society: Baedalmal, Vol. 19, pp.49-80. Jaworski, A., and Coupland, N. 2006. The discourse reader. London: Routledge. Jefferson, Gail. 1988. On the sequential organization of trouble-talk in ordinary conversation, Social Problems, 35 (4), pp. 418-441. Johnstone, B. 2008. Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Jorgensen, J. 1996. The functions of sarcastic irony in speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, pp. 613 – 634. Kärkkäinen, E. 2003. Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A Description of Its Interactional Functions, with a Focus on I Think. John Benjamins Publishing. 210 Kim, C. S. 1983.Kwue cheksok chosa wa emi yenkwu (A study of Korean connective particles and suffixes). Seoul: Thap Publisher Kim, N . K. 2012. Discourse-centered Korean language teaching: language knowledge. In Proceedings of the 22 nd International Conference on Korean Language Education, August 11-12. Kim, N. K. 2013. The role of schema for strategies of the Korean language teaching. In Proceedings of the 23 rd International Conference on Korean Language Education, August 10-11, 2013. Kim, S. K. 1980. Yenkyel emi -(u)nikka wa -(e)se uy hwayonglon (Pragmatics of -(u)nikka and - (e)se). Seoul: Thap Publisher. Kim, T.Y. 1987. The grammticalization of the verb kacita. Wurimalgul society: Wurimalgul, Vol. 5, pp. 21-36. Leech, G. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman. Lehmann, C. 1982. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. München/Newcastle: Lincom Europa. (revised version of Arbeiten des Kölner Universalienprojekts 48). Lehmann, C. 1985. Grammaticalization: synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile, 20, 303-318. Levinson, S. 1983 and 1997. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. Levinson, S. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge: MIT press. Li, C. (Ed.), 1975. Word Order and Word Order Change. Austin: University of Texas Press. Li, C. (Ed.), 1977. Mechanisms of Syntactic Change. Austin: University of Texas Press. Lee, K. D. 1993. A Korean Grammar on Semantic-Pragmatic Principles. Seoul: Hankwuk munhwasa. Lee, I. S. and Chae, W. 1999. Kwuke mwunpep kanguy (Lecture of Korean Grammar). Seoul:Hakyeonsa. Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McCarthy, M. 1998. From sentence to discourse: Discourse grammar and English language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 32, 2, pp. 263-287. McCarthy, M. 1998. Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McCarthy, M. and R. Carter. 1995. What is spoken grammar and how should we teach it. ELT Journal Vol. 49, 3, 207-217. McCarthy, M. 2011. Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 211 McCarthy, M. and Carter, R. 1995. Spoken grammar: What is it and how can we teach it? ELT Journal, 49, pp. 207-218. Meier, A. J. 1995. "Defining politeness: universality in appropriateness," Language Sciences, 17 (4), pp. 345-356. Meillet, A. 1912. L'évolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia (Rivista di Scienza) 12(26): 6. Reprinted in Meillet, A.. 1921. Linguistique historiques et linguistique générale. Vol 2. Paris: Klincksieck, pp. 130-148. Miriam A. Locher, Sage L. Graham (Eds.), 2010. Interpersonal pragmatics, De Gruyter Mouton Press. Mok, J. S. 2011. A Spoken Korean Grammar: For the integration with the Written Grammar. Urimal Studies 28, pp. 57-98. Nakane, I. 2012. Silence: The Handbook of Intercultural Discourse and Communication, pp.158- 179. Nam, K. S. 1978. -(e)se uy hwayonglon (Pragmatic study of -(e)se). Mal 3 chip (Language Vol. 3), Yensei taehakkyo hankukehaktang (Yensei University Korean Language Institutue). Nam, K. S. and Lukoff, F. 1983. Nonli cek hyengsikuloseyuy -(u)nikka kwumunkwa -(e)se kwumun (-(u)nikka and -(e)se constructions as logical forms.) In Koh, Y. K. and Nam, K. S.(Eds.), Kwuke uy thongsa uymilon (Korean syntax and semantics), Seoul: Thap Publisher. pp. 2–2. Nunan, D. 1993. An introduction to discourse analysis. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin. Nuyts, J. 2001. Epistemic modality, language and conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Oh, S.S. 2005. A mulit-level semantic approach to Korean causal conjunctive suffixes ese and (u)nikka: A corpus-based analysis, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 10, pp.469-488. Ochs, E., Schegloff, E.m & Thompson, S. (Eds.), 1996. Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ono, T., Thompson, S. A., and Suzuki, S. 2000. The pragmatic nature of the so-called subject marker ga in Japanese: Evidence from conversation. Discourse studies 1 (4), pp. 55-84. Onodera, N. O. 2004. Japanese discourse markers: Synchronic and diachronic discourse analysis. John Benjamins. Owen, M. 1983. Apologies and remedial exchanges. New York: Mouton. Paulston, C., Kiesling, S. and Rangel, E. (Eds.), 2012. The Handbook of Intercultural Discourse and Communication. Wiley-Blackwell. Paltridge, B. 2006. Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum. Quirk et al., 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman. 212 Rouchota, V. 1998. Connectives, coherence and relevance, In V. Rouchota and A. Jucker, (Eds.), Current issues in relevance theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 11-57. Savignon, S. 1991. Communicative language teaching: state of the art. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 25, pp. 261-277. Scheibman J. 2002. Point of view and grammar: Structural patterns of subjectivity, In American English conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schieffelin, B. 1986. Teasing and shaming in Kaluli children's interactions. In: Schieffelin, B. B. and Ochs, E. (Eds.), Language socialization across cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.165-181. Schiffrin, D. 1985. Everyday argument: the organization of diversity in talk. in Van Dijk, T. (Ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 3: Discourse and Dialogue, London: Academic Press, pp. 35-46. Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schiffrin, D. 1990. The management of a co-operative self during argument: the role of opinions and stories. In Grimshaw, A. D. (Ed.), Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 241-259. Seo. J.S. 1973. About connective nuntey. Journal of Korean linguistics 61, pp. 96-98. Seo, J.S. 1990. Kwuke mwunpepuy yenkwu (A Study on Korean Grammar). Seoul:Hankookmunhwasa. Seo, S. K. 1998. Hankwuke chepsok emi -(u)nikka uy hwayongchok yenkwu silon (A pragmatic study of the Korean connective suffix -(u)nikka). Linguistics, 602, pp. 183–201. Seong, K.C. 1993. Emi 'ese'wa 'nikka'uy pyenpyelcek thukseng (The Distinctive Properties of Ese and Nikka). Cwusikyenghakpo 11, pp. 50-72. Seong, N. S. 1978. Iyu, wenin ul nathanaynun ceksokmun yenkwu (A study of conjunctive constructions representing reason and cause). Journal of Yensei language and literature vol. 11. Seoul: Yensei University. Siemund, P. 2001. Interrogative constructions. Language typology and language universals, Vol. 2, pp. 1010-1028. Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1986. Relevance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sweetser, E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sweetser, E. 1996. Conditionals and mental spaces. In G. Fauconnier & E. Sweester (Eds.),Space, worlds and grammarChicago: University of Chicago. pp. 318–333. Tannen and Wallat. 1987. Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction. in Jaworski, A. and Coupland, N (Eds). 2006. The discourse reader. Routledge. Tholander, M. 2002. Cross-gender teasing as a socializing practice. Discourse Processes 34 (3), pp. 311-338. 213 Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in Interaction. London: Longman. Thompson, S. 2002. “Object complements” and conversation: towards a realistic account. Studies in Language, 26, 125-164. Thompson, S. and Hopper, P. 2001. Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. In Joan Bybee & Paul J. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp. 27-59. Traugott, E. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 65, pp. 31-55. Traugott, E. 1999. The rhetoric of counter-expectation in semantic change: a study in subjectification. In A. Blank and P. Koch (Eds.) Historical semantics and cognition. (Cognitive Linguistics Research 13.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 177-196. Traugott, E. 2004. Historical pragmatics. In Laurence R. Horn and Ward, G. (Eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics, Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 538-561. Traugott, E. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalization. In Stein, D. and Wright, S. (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation in language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 31-54. Traugott, E. and Dasher, R. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 96) Traugott, E.C. and Heine, B. 1991. Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1, John Benjamins Publishing. Traugott, E. and Heine, B. (Eds.) 1991. Approaches to Grammaticalization. Typological Studies in Language 19, 2, Amsterdam: Benjamins. Traugott, E. and König, E. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Traugott, E. and Heine, B. (Eds.) Approaches to Grammaticalization Vol. I. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp.189-218. Van Dijk, T. A. 1977. Pragmatic macrostructures in discourse and cognition. In M. de Mey, et al. (Eds.), CC 77. University of Ghent, pp. 99-113. Van Dijk, T. A. 1979. Recalling and Summarizing Complex Discourse. In: Burghardt, W. and Hölker, K. (Eds.), Text Processing. Textverarbeitung. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, pp. 49-118. Van Dijk, T. A. 1979. Pragmatic connectives. Journal of pragmatics 3, pp. 451-452 Widdowson, H. 1996. Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Widdowson. H. 2004. Text, Context, Pretext. Oxford: Blackwell. Widdowson, H. 2007. Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wagner, L. 2004. Positive- and Negative-Politeness Strategies: Apologizing in the Speech Community of Cuernavaca, Mexico. International Communication Studies XIII-1, pp. 19–27. 214 Yang, I. S. 1972. Korean Syntax. Seoul: Paekhapsa. Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yule. G. 2010. The study of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yun, P.H. 1992. Kwuke cepsokemi yenkwu (A Study of Korean Connective Endings). Seoul: Hansinmwunhwasa. Yun, P. H. 1998. Cepsok emi uy uymi (The meanings of connective suffixes). In S. M. Yi (Ed.), Uymilon yenkwu uy say panghyang (The new approach to semantic study). Seoul: Pakicheng, pp. 253–303.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This dissertation explores one of the most prominent grammatical phenomena contributing to the expansion of Korean grammar, one which is carried out by virtue of functional shifts from connectives to sentence-concluding endings. The present study is devoted to revealing the development of diverse applications of the grammatical construction e kaciko from its use as a connective to that of a sentence-concluding ending. Through the process of functional shift, newly created constructions acquire new implicatures and thus establish pragmatic functions such as performing speech acts, instead of being confined to denoting only locutionary meanings. Original corpus data deploying the construction e kaciko as both a connective and a sentence-concluding ending are analyzed through the lens of their pragmatic accounts at the discourse level. ❧ Analysis of the corpus data revealed that e kaciko exclusively appears in spoken discourse and is predominantly distributed in more informal and negative contexts. Examination of the connective e kaciko showed that it has distinctive pragmatic roles across various discourses, namely, 1) when expressing the speaker’s personal associations toward sequential relations, 2) when expressing the speaker’s regret or pity toward a negative consequence, 3) when blaming the addressee with regard to a negative consequence, 4) when asking for the interlocutor’s understating in troublesome situations, 5) when expressing the speaker’s surprise in adversative contexts, 6) when projecting the speaker’s judgmental opinion in conditional contexts, 7) when making a request, and 8) when stating a refusal. ❧ Examination of the connective e kaciko as a sentence-concluding ending, on the other hand, showed that it was distributed exclusively in negative contexts, and that the speakers therein expressed a negative stance. E kaciko serving as a sentence-concluding ending thus creates two possible pragmatic meanings on a broader scale: (a) frustration-based emotions and (b) sarcasm, which are both related to negative or troublesome contexts. These contexts can refer to what has already happened at the hands of a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd person, or even ‘outsourced’ non-human actors (e.g., the weather, North Korea) and could not be changed. As a consequence, although such negative or troublesome contexts may or may not affect the speaker’s unpleasant feelings, the sentence-concluding ending e kaciko thereby expresses the speaker’s sarcasm, regret, pity, lamentableness, criticism, complaint, or frustration, etc., toward the particular situation or context. ❧ The nature of utterances ending in e kaciko coincides with the negative nature of utterances that contain the connective form of e kaciko. In other words, the distribution tendencies of the connective e kaciko become more strongly accentuated, resulting in the implication of a negative stance, through the deployment of the sentence-concluding ending e kaciko. In a broader sense, the results of the current study shed light on the fact that frequent language use over time in particular contexts accumulates and becomes schematized, resulting in new categories of pragmatic functions being generated from the speaker’s intention of expressing his/her attitude, thoughts toward the content (what is being said) and/or the addressee, politeness strategies, social acts, and other related schemata in discourse.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The speaker's choice of using object-marking in informal spoken Korean

Asset Metadata

Creator Ahn, Heeyoung (author)

Core Title A corpus-based discourse analysis of Korean grammatical constructions: Focus on the multifold functions and meanings of the pragmatic construction e kaciko

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program East Asian Languages and Cultures

Publication Date 11/27/2015

Defense Date 10/21/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag context,corpus-based discourse analysis,East Asian Languages and Cultures,facework,grammaticalization,implicature,intersubjectivity,Korean connectives and sentence-concluding endings,language use in interaction,OAI-PMH Harvest,politeness,pragmaticalization,pragmatics,schemata,speaker’s attitude,subjectivity

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Kim, Namkil (committee chair), Li, Yen-Hui (committee member), Silva-Corvalan, Carmen (committee member)

Creator Email heeyouna@usc.edu,heeyoungahnusc@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-201205

Unique identifier UC11279335

Identifier etd-AhnHeeyoun-4057.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-201205 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-AhnHeeyoun-4057.pdf

Dmrecord 201205

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Ahn, Heeyoung

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA