Discourse Studies - CiteSeerX

Discourse Studies http://dis.sagepub.com

Evidentiality in achieving entitlement, objectivity, and detachment in Korean conversation Mary Shin Kim Discourse Studies 2005; 7; 87 DOI: 10.1177/1461445605048768 The online version of this article can be found at: http://dis.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/7/1/87

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Discourse Studies can be found at: Email Alerts: http://dis.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://dis.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Downloaded from http://dis.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008 © 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

A RT I C L E

87

Evidentiality in achieving entitlement, objectivity, and detachment in Korean conversation

M A RY S H I N K I M UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES

Discourse Studies Copyright © 2005 SAGE Publications. (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) www.sagepublications.com Vol 7(1): 87–108. 1461-4456 (200502) 7:1; 10.1177/1461445605048768

A B S T R A C T Evidentiality has been extensively studied in linguistics for its function in coding the source of knowledge or for expressing the speaker’s attitude towards knowledge. However, few studies examine how evidential marking is sensitive and responsive to the unfolding talk and actions of the participants in social interaction. Analyzing audio and video data of naturally occurring conversations in Korean in a conversation analysis framework, this article demonstrates how the speaker often makes the choice of evidential marking or shifts the choice of evidential marking according to the participant’s response, achieving certain interactional functions. The speaker makes a strategic choice to use the experiential evidential marking –telako or shifts from zero-evidential marking to overt experiential evidential marking –telako for the same proposition to achieve entitlement, objectivity, or detachment regarding his claim. This study shows that, in social interaction, the choice of the speaker’s evidential marking is relative and interactively organized rather than static and predetermined. KEY WORDS:

detachment, entitlement, evidentiality, experiential evidential marking, objectivity, social interaction, zero-evidential marking

1. Introduction In linguistics, evidentiality has been primarily examined for its function in coding the source of knowledge, e.g. from the speaker’s senses, through hearsay or by inference (Bybee, 1985; Chafe and Nichols, 1986; Willett, 1988; Aikhenvald and Dixon, 2003) or to express the speaker’s attitude towards knowledge, e.g. the speaker’s degree of certainty in the reliability of knowledge (Givón, 1982; Chafe, 1986; Palmer, 1986; Mushin, 2001). Other researchers have viewed evidentiality in terms of information ownership, e.g. what information belongs to the speaker (Kamio, 1997; Trent, 1997). In recent years, the scope of study on evidentiality has expanded to examine its dialogic and socio-interactional meanings. Research in linguistic anthropology reveals how evidentiality constructs


88

Discourse Studies 7(1)

social meanings, such as authority and responsibility of knowledge (Hill and Irvine, 1993). However, as Fox (2001) points out, most of these studies on evidentiality in social interaction focus on evidence in general rather than on grammatical evidential markings, and even a study which examines grammatical evidential markings (e.g. Bendix’s study on Newari evidential markings) is based on elicited discourse and not on naturally occurring conversational data. Few studies examine how evidential markings are sensitive and responsive to the moment-by-moment interactions among participants. Fox’s study (2001) provides a unique perspective on understanding evidentiality by examining evidential marking in naturally occurring conversational data. She demonstrates that evidential marking in English indexes social meanings of authority, responsibility, and entitlement, and, thus, is responsive to the social relationship between the speaker and the recipient. In a variety of contexts, the speaker will choose to use different evidential markings with the same proposition to different recipients, claiming different degrees of authority, responsibility, and entitlement. This study aims to further expand the understanding of evidentiality in everyday social interaction by examining naturally occurring conversation in Korean language with a conversation analysis framework. The practice of giving evidence is recognized as a general, yet consequential activity in interaction, where people routinely tell the source or basis of their knowledge (Pomerantz, 1984a). This study will further expand our understanding of such practices by explicating how people not only give evidence, but also routinely reconstruct their knowledge with their evidence and experience for various interactional purposes. The study will also fill a gap in understanding evidentiality in social interaction, because Korean has a different evidential system from English. While English does not have bound-morphology, but modal auxiliaries, adverbs, and idiomatic phrases which index evidentiality (Chafe, 1986; Fox, 2001), Korean is a language with a bound-morphology of grammaticalized evidential markings.1 Finally, this study demonstrates that evidential marking in the Korean language does not merely reflect how the speaker acquired knowledge, but is also sensitive to the on-going interaction itself and strategically deployed to achieve certain interactional functions. The focus of the study is on the Korean experiential evidential marking –telako, which indicates that the information conveyed was acquired through the speaker’s perceptual experience in the past (Lee, 1991; Song, 1998).2 The –telako evidential marking is a sentence-ender frequently used by all age groups in daily Korean conversation (Yuen, 2001). The speaker’s perceptual experience includes visual and auditory experience (see, observe, hear, witness) and sensory experience (feel, perceive, notice) as in example (1).3 (1) tisiwasi an ssu-nun salam manh-te-la-ko. dishwasher not use-ATTR person many-RT-INTROS-QT [I saw/noticed/observed] many people not using a dishwasher.


Kim: Evidentiality in Korean conversation

This study will demonstrate that the speaker’s choice of evidential marking or shift of choice of evidential marking is responsive to the unfolding talk and actions of the participants in Korean conversation. The speaker shifts the choice of evidential marking for the same proposition in sequence according to the other participants’ response, in order to accomplish various interactional functions, namely, to achieve entitlement to, objectivity of, or detachment from the knowledge or stance claimed. That is, the speaker may claim entitlement to the information he states by displaying that his claim is based on his past personal experience. The speaker may also claim objectivity in describing his own personal feelings or stance by positioning himself as the object of his observation. The speaker often claims detachment from what he says by depicting his view as a statement of observation rather than strong declaration of fact or assertion of the speaker’s intention. Detailed examination of the moment-to-moment unfolding of talk, action, and participation structures of the participants (this approach has been taken by previous studies by Sacks et al., 1974; Goodwin, 1984; Ochs et al., 1996) will show that, in social interaction, the choice of the speaker’s evidential marking is relative and interactively organized rather than static and predetermined. The organization of this article is as follows: Section 2 provides the description of the data for this study, while Section 3 introduces the morpho-syntactic structure of the –telako evidential marking. Section 4 examines Korean conversational data and discusses how the speaker shifts the choice of evidential marking in response to moment-by-moment interactions among participants. This section is further subdivided into discussions of the interactional functions accomplished when the speaker shifts his choice of evidential marking, such as entitlement, objectivity, and detachment. Section 5 examines how the speaker makes a strategic choice to use the –telako evidential marking at onset to carry out interactionally delicate actions, such as rejections, disagreements, or challenges.

2. Data The data for this study consist of naturally occurring conversations among native Korean speakers, ranging in age from their twenties to their sixties. The conversations consist of audio-recorded telephone conversations and audiorecorded and video-recorded face-to-face conversations, involving two parties and multi-parties. The database consists of five telephone conversations (approximately 330 minutes) and four multi-party face-to-face conversations (460 minutes). The data were transcribed following Jefferson’s transcription conventions (1984) (see the transcription conventions in Appendix A). The data transcripts include a morpheme-by-morpheme gloss (see Appendix B for the grammatical morphemes in Korean). An approximate translation of each evidential marking is marked with [ ], and the sentential elements, such as noun phrases and predicates, which are often omitted or left unexpressed in discourse, are presented in ( ) for the English translation.


89

90


3. The morpho-syntactic structure of the –telako evidential marking Before discussing the interactional uses of the –telako evidential marking, a brief introduction of its morpho-syntactic structure will assist our understanding of why it is used to achieve various social-interactional meanings, such as entitlement, objectivity, and detachment. The –telako evidential marking is a sentence-ender which consists of three suffixes: the retrospective suffix te which displays the speaker’s recollection of past experience, the introspective suffix la which expresses the speaker’s introspection, and the quotative particle ko.4 According to Sohn (1986), the basic syntactic structure which underlies the retrospective suffix te is that of a transitive sentence of the shape ‘Agent + Complement Sentence + Time + Predicate’. Sohn notes that te requires an agent argument, the REPORTER (the speaker) who PERCEIVES an event or situation, and a complement sentence as another argument which describes the event or situation. Although the agent of the predicate (to PERCEIVE) is not verbally identified in the –telako construction, understanding that the agent of the predicate is the speaker of the moment who reports his perception is crucial. The current speaker is the REPORTER of the current moment and at the same time the PERCEIVER of the past perceptual experience: (2) ciswu-ka acwu coyongha-te-la-ko. Ciswu-NOM very be:quiet-RT-INTROS-QT [I noticed/perceived] Ciswu being really quiet. (I = the current speaker = the reporter = the perceiver of the situation)

The syntactic structure, which demonstrates that the agent of the predicate is the speaker of the moment (REPORTER = PERCEIVER of the past experience), has a consequential effect in how –telako is used in interactions. Because the speaker (first person) is always the agent of the perceiving of an event or situation, the construction denotes the speaker’s viewpoint toward the event or situation. Such incorporation of the speaker’s viewpoint is tightly related to the evidential functions of –telako. As the speaker’s viewpoint and past experience are embedded in the –telako construction, the speaker uses it to highlight his entitlement and involvement in the knowledge or stance he states. However, the function of the –telako evidential marking is not limited to claiming the speaker’s involvement and entitlement, but it is also used to claim objectivity of the proposition expressed by the speaker’s utterance. The speaker, in particular, claims objectivity in justifying his personal feelings or stance. This unique function of claiming objectivity in delivering the speaker’s personal feelings or stance comes from the pragmatic constraint of the retrospective suffix te.5 The subject of the complement (the perceived event or situation) has ‘non-



equi subject constraint’ (Yang, 1972), wherein the subject NP of the complement sentence cannot be identical with the speaker. The following is an example: (3) nay-ka mwutay-eyse chwum-ul chwu-te-la-ko. I-NOM stage -LOC dance-ACC to:dance-RT-INTROS-QT [I saw] myself dancing on the stage.

Sohn (1986) and Lee (1991) point out that this constraint is a pragmatic constraint related to human experience; one cannot observe a situation where one is the object of the observation. However, if the subject NP of the complement sentence is a non-volitional experiencer, the agent of the predicate (to PERCEIVE) can be the same as the subject NP of the complement sentence, as shown in the following example: (4) na casin-i cengmal kippu-te-la-ko. myself-NOM really be:happy-RT-INTROS-QT [I observed] myself being really happy.

In this case, the speaker positions himself as the object of observation and objectifies the speaker’s own experience as if it were a third party’s experience. Thus, the first person subject is allowed in example (3) if the subject is a non-volitional experiencer (e.g. if the speaker describes what he was doing as a character in his dreams). Because of the pragmatic effect of the suffix te, the –telako evidential marking can be used when the speaker attempts to achieve objectivity in describing his personal experience by characterizing himself (REPORTER) as the observer or witness of that experience. The speaker (REPORTER) justifies what he says by showing that his assertion is based on observing or witnessing someone (the subject NP of the complement sentence) who sometimes may be the speaker himself undergoing some experience (I will further explain this in Section 4.2). Furthermore, such pragmatic effect sometimes serves to detach the speaker from the proposition expressed by the speaker’s utterance. The speaker’s utterance is represented as a statement of observation rather than an assertion of the speaker’s intention or aspiration. The speaker often detaches himself from his claim when he reduces his claim or when the speaker expresses a challenging or opposing stance toward the addressee (this will be further explained in Sections 4.3. and 5). Based on these understandings of the morpho-syntactic structure which underlies the –telako evidential marking, the functions in conversational interaction will be examined in the following sections.

4. The speaker shifting choice of evidential marking In this section, I will demonstrate that stating a claim (e.g. knowledge, information, or stance) in talk-in-interaction involves the speaker’s selection of alternate


91

92


1. 2. 3.

Speaker: Addressee: Speaker:

4.

Addressee:

FIGURE

initial claim (zero-evidential marking: the sentence-ender –e/a) lack of apt uptake (display of disagreement, challenge, doubt, etc.) reconfiguration of the initial claim (overt experiential evidential marking -telako: achieving entitlement, objectivity, or detachment) uptake (reconstrual of the speaker’s modified claim)

1. The recurrent sequential format of the -telako evidential marking

sentence-enders which display different evidentiality in Korean. The speaker has a choice of evidential marking in stating his claim and often shifts his choice of evidential marking for the same proposition in the course of interaction. The speaker shifts his choice of evidential marking from zero evidential marking to overt experiential evidential marking –telako for the same proposition in response to the other participants’ response and actions. This shift is well demonstrated by the way the experiential evidential marking –telako is routinely embedded in the recurrent sequential format, shown in Figure 1. The speaker first makes a declarative assertion about some state of affairs or displays his stance with no overt evidential marking (zero-evidential marking). When the speaker does not receive apt uptake or faces challenges or disagreements from an addressee, the speaker reconfigures his initial claim and provides a modified version of the initial claim in sequence, using the overt experiential evidential marking –telako. In the second version, the speaker not only replays the initial claim, but also explicitly indicates that the source or ground for his claim is based on his perceptual experience in the past. By shifting the choice of evidential marking, from zero-evidential marking to overt experiential evidential marking –telako, the speaker attempts to accomplish certain interactional functions. One of these functions shows the speaker attempting to achieve entitlement to the knowledge or stance he states, thus supporting and strengthening his claim. The speaker attempts to achieve entitlement to the claim he makes by displaying that his claim is based on his past personal experience. As the speaker reconfigures his initial claim according to the addressee’s response, the addressee also, in turn, displays a different uptake to the speaker’s reconfigured claim as seen in the following segment. Based on Fox’s (2001) study, which includes zero-evidential marking (no overt evidential marking) as an essential member of the evidential system, this study includes zero-evidential marking as a part of Korean evidential system.6 The sentence-ender –e/a, the most frequently used sentence-ender in informal speech in Korean conversation, appears as the frequent zero-evidential marking in conversational data. The sentence-ender –e/a delivers the speaker’s claim as factual knowledge without overt evidential marking.7


Kim: Evidentiality in Korean conversation 4.1

S U P P O RT I N G T H E S P E A K E R ’ S C L A I M B Y A C H I E V I N G E N T I T L E M E N T

The segment is excerpted from a telephone conversation between two female friends S and T. Here, S is telling a piece of news regarding their mutual friend, Sangmi. S delivers the news that Sangmi has lost a lot of weight: (5) Diet 6 → S:

7

T:

8

9

S:

10 → S:

11

T:

12

S:

13

T:

14

S:

15

T:

16 → S:

17

T:

uh kuntey sangmi-ka (.) cincca sal-ul manhi ppay-ss-ta? uh by:the:way Sangmi-NOM really weight-ACC much lose-PST-DC Uh, by the way, Sangmi really lost a lot of weight. uh kulay-ss-e¿= uh be:so-PST-IE Uh, Is that so? =wuntong [yelssimhi ha-n-ta-kwu kule-te-la-kwu. exercise diligently do-IMPFV-DC-QT say-RT-INTROS-QT (I heard that) she has been diligently working out. [e Yes. kuntey cin:cca manhi ppay-ss-e. but really much lose-PST-IE But, (she) really lost a lot of (weight). uh= Uh huh. =kutongan ccokkumssik ppaci-te-ni, while little:by:litte lose-RT-DET (She started to) lose weight little by little, uh Uh huh. nay-ka han il-cwuil cen-ey manna-ss-keteng? I-NOM about one-week before-at meet-PST-CORREL I met (her) about a week ago, uh Uh huh. kuntey cengmal ppacy-e iss-te-la-ko:. and really lose-CONN exist-RT-INTROS-QT And [I saw] (that she) really lost the weight. Eh::: Oh:::.

In line 6, S delivers this news by using the sentence-ender ta, which functions to inform the addressee of noteworthy information (Lee, 1991: 414–15). However, in response, in lines 7–8, T indicates that she already knows that Sangmi has been diligently working out through hearsay.8 As T does not register S’s information as newsworthy and claims to already know about it, S repeats her claim using the sentence-ender –e, which functions to deliver the speaker’s claim as factual knowledge without overt evidential marking, in line 10, but she still does not receive much uptake from T in line 11. Here, in order to strengthen her claim as newsworthy and at the same time elicit a more upgraded uptake from T, S attempts to achieve entitlement to her claim by incorporating her direct


93

94


experience. S states that she not only knows that Sangmi lost a lot of weight, but she has also witnessed it when she met Sangmi. First, in lines 12 and 14, S highlights the newness of the piece of information she delivers by stating that it was a week ago when she witnessed the change in Sangmi’s weight and that there was a drastic change since Sangmi had gradually started to lose weight. Then, S restates her claim in line 16. Note how S reshapes her initial claim, which had no overt evidential marking in lines 6 and 10; she modifies the claim in line 16 with the experiential evidential marking –telako. As S reconfigures her initial claim by revealing her direct experience as witness to the event, S achieves more entitlement to her claim.9 The fact that the speaker has past perceptual experience with propositional content provides her more entitlement than other participants of the talk. As Sacks (1984) points out, a person’s entitlement to an experience differs according to whether the person had direct or indirect access to the event. Also, as S incorporates her past experience into her action (delivering a piece of news), her action also becomes more warranted. S’s direct experience with the event is a better source for delivering a piece of news or telling a story than someone who has simply heard of the information, like T. As S reconfigures her initial action, in response, she receives a more upgraded uptake from the addressee, T, in line 17. T produces a lengthened version of eh, which translated into ‘oh’ in English, displaying more appreciation and engagement with S’s talk. T displays that she has registered S’s utterance as noteworthy news, a stance she did not fully express in her initial response in lines 7–8. The speaker’s shift of evidential marking, from zero-evidential marking to overt experiential evidential marking, demonstrates that the speaker has a choice in selecting evidential markings. The data also reveal that the shift of the choice of evidential marking is sensitive and responsive to the participant’s response and action. The speaker’s act of shifting the choice of evidential marking occurs when the addressee does not display adequate uptake and the speaker’s action of delivering a piece of news faces challenge. 4.2

S U P P O RT I N G T H E S P E A K E R ’ S P E R S O N A L S TA N C E B Y A C H I E V I N G O B J E C T I V I T Y

Shifting the choice of evidential marking can also be used as an interactional resource for achieving objectivity of the information the speaker claims. In particular, the speaker often attempts to objectify his own personal feelings or stance. In the following segment, the speaker shifts from zero-evidential marking to experiential evidential marking –telako when other participants display disagreement with the speaker’s personal stance. The segment is excerpted from video-recorded data of a multi-party conversation: (6) Dishwasher 1 26

D:

kuntey waynyamyen, sel- se-kacikwu selkeciha-ko namyen, well because wash stand-and wash:the:dishes-CONN after Well, because after washing the dishes while standing, ((D looks toward H for alignment or sympathy.)) ↓


Kim: Evidentiality in Korean conversation 27

28 →

29

30

D:

31

H:

32

H:

33

J:

34

D:

35 36

37 →

38

H:

39 40

M:

cichy-e.= get:tired-IE (I) get tired. =cin-i ppacy-e. energy-NOM drain-IE (My) energy gets drained. (.3) ((As D does not receive any alignment or sympathy from H, she shows embarrassment and turns her head away from H and looks down at her plate in front of her.)) °na-man kule(h)-n[ka? hh I-only be:so-INTERR Am I the only one (who feels) so? hh [totaychey el(h)mana mankhil hh what:on:earth how many How many (h) on earth (are there)? hh [hh hh [hhh hhh [ANi kukey ani-te-la-twu ilekhey (.3) no that:NOM be:not-RT-INTROS-even like:this No, regardless of that, isangha-y. cipanil-i cheycil-i= be:strange-IE household:work-NOM physical:constitution-NOM =ani-n-ci:, ° phikonha-kwu mak= be:not-ATTR-whether be:tired-CONN much It’s strange. Maybe (it’s) because household work does not suit me, (I) get tired, and =salam-i cin-i ppaci-te-la-kwu.° = person-NOM energy-NOM lose-RT-INTROS-QT [I observed/perceived] a person’s energy getting drained. =cham ce: kkamek-ess-ta. by:the:way I forget-PST-DC By the way, I forgot. (.4) cha tu-si-l ° pwun ° tea drink-SH-ATTR person Who’s drinking tea?

In the above sequence, D discusses why she uses a dishwasher instead of washing dishes by hand. In lines 27–8, D states that she gets tired and her energy becomes drained when she washes dishes. While taking this stance, D looks toward H to elicit alignment or some kind of understanding. However, H does not display any alignment to D, and there is silence (.3) in line 29. When D does not receive any alignment or empathy from H, she shows embarrassment and turns her head away from H and looks down at her plate in front of her. After not receiving any alignment, D further produces a self-deprecating question. D asks if she is the only one who feels that way in line 30. When a speaker produces a selfdeprecating assessment (Pomerantz, 1984b), the preferred response from the


95

96


addressee is disagreement, the addressee denying the speaker’s self-deprecating stance. However, H does not display disagreement (i.e. no, other people also feel that way), and further makes the action of teasing D in line 31. H displays her doubt about how D feels, that her energy gets drained when she washes the dishes, by asking just how many dishes there are. H makes her action of teasing D with laughter. As H teases D, J, another participant of the interaction, participates in H’s action by laughing together in line 33. As H does not provide any alignment, but doubt, D attempts to defend and support her stance as valid by achieving objectivity in her claim in the subsequent talk. D first displays her opposing stance to H with the word ani ‘no’ with a loud voice and stress in line 34, and further provides an account for her stance in lines 35–6. Then, in line 37, D reconstructs her initial stance by shifting the choice of evidential marking from zero-evidential marking into the –telako evidential marking (it is also pronounced as –telakwu as seen in these data). Note here how D reformulates her initial utterance in line 28, a declarative assertion of her feelings using zero-evidential marking, into a more objective observation by using the –telako evidential marking. By shifting to the –telako evidential marking, the speaker positions herself as the object of observation and objectifies her own experience as if it were a third party’s experience. As previously mentioned, this effect comes from the pragmatic constraints of the retrospective suffix te. The suffix te cannot be used when the speaker recollects an event in which the speaker herself was the volitional agent of an action. Such a pragmatic constraint of the suffix has contributed to characterizing the speaker as the observer or witness instead of an agent of the event. Even in the case where the speaker describes her own feelings or emotion she has experienced in the past, the speaker is characterized as an observer of her own feelings or emotion. Using the –telako evidential marking, the speaker can justify her personal stance or experience by achieving objectivity of what she claims. Furthermore, D depicts her personal stance or experience as a general experience, which she has observed or witnessed from ordinary people. Note that in line 37, D uses the word salam ‘person’ highlighting the speaker’s action of claiming objectivity. D’s personal experience is no longer represented as her idiosyncratic experience, but rather it is transformed into a general experience all human beings may encounter. As none of the addressees align with her, D does not further attempt to change the addressees’ stance, nor does she attempt to elicit a different uptake from the addressees. In the subsequent talk, the participants engage in a different activity, drinking tea. The following example also illustrates how the speaker shifts the choice of evidential marking to achieve objectivity in describing her own experience or stance. The segment is excerpted from video-recorded data of a multi-party conversation about people’s eating habits. Here, E talks about how she usually



eats much more rice than side dishes when she dines out, and this eating habit often makes her the object of ridicule by her friends: (7) Eating habits 1 → E:

2

3 → H:

4

E:

5

W:

6

E:

7 8

9

H:

10

W:

11

E:

12 → H:

13

E:

14

W:

15

E:

16

W:

kuntey:, na-nun tto hana- pap-ul nemwu manhi mek-e-yo.= but I-TOP also one rice-ACC too much eat-IE-POL But, another thing, I eat too much rice. =eti tuleka-se (.) oysikha-c-anh-a-yo? where enter-CONN dine:out-NML-not-IE-POL (When I) dine out somewhere, you know, ((H shakes his head from side to side displaying his opposing stance.)) ↓ pap-[ul manhi mek-ul kke eps-e.] rice-ACC much eat-ATTR thing not:have-IE There is no need to eat a lot of rice. [kulem hankwuk- hankwuk]ceki panchan-i ilekhey iss-umyen-un:, then Korean Korean there side:dish-NOM like:this have-if-TOP then, if there are Korean- Korean side dishes like this, [um] mm [pan]chan-pota pap-ul manhi mek-unikka, side:dish-than rice-ACC much eat-since since (I) eat more rice than the side dishes, wuli chinkwu-ka iss-taka, our friend-NOM exist-TRANS [ANI MILYen]sulepkey [[way pap-ul manhi mek-ni? = ((smiling voice)) no foolishly why rice-ACC much eat-INTERR My friend is like, ‘No, why are you foolishly eating so much rice?’ [ku ke-n- ] [[ku- ku that thing-TOP that that That isthat- that, [[hhhh hhhh =panchan-ul manhi mek-eya-ci:.= side:dish-ACC much eat-must-COMM (my friend said), ‘(You) must eat more side dishes.’ ((H shakes his head from side to side.)) ↓ =ney. pap-ul manhi mek-ul philyo-ka eps(h)-ci(h). yeah rice-ACC much eat-ATTR need-NOM not:have-COMM Yeah, there is no need to eat a lot of rice, of course. KUNtey:, But, ney. Yeah. panchan-ul mek-ullyemyen cca-nikka side:dish-ACC eat-in:order:to salty-since In order to eat side dishes, since it is salty, [um] ((W nods her head displaying alignment toward E.))


97

98


17 → E:

18

W:

19

E:

20

H:

21

22 23

W:

mm [pap]-ul a- [[amwulayto]] mek-key toy-te-la-ko.= rice-ACC inevitably eat-RESUL become-RT-INTROS-QT [I noticed/observed myself] inevitably end up eating rice. [[kule-chi.]] be:so-COMM (That’s) right. = [hankwuk umsik-i.] Korean food-NOM (in case of ) Korean food. [kuntey kukey icey] shh kaman issca, but that:NOM now let:me:see But, that is now, let me see, ku salam ttala [talu-ntey:, that person according:to be:different-but it varies by person, [< < hhh (( ))

rising /continuing /falling intonation a rise stronger than a comma but weaker than a question mark sound stretch cut-off or self-interruption underlining indicates some form of stress or emphasis upper case indicates especially loud talk portions quieter than the surrounding talk compressed or rushed talk jump-started talk laughter or breathing transcriber’s remarks

APPENDIX B

Abbreviations ACC ATTR CL COMM CONN CORREL DC DCT:RE DET IE IMPFV INTERR INTROS LOC NML NOM PL POL PST QT RESUL RT SH TOP TRANS

Accusative Attributive Classifier Committal Connective Correlative Declarative suffix Deductive reasoning Determinative Informal ending Imperfective Interrogative Introspective Locative Nominalizer Nominative Plural suffix Polite speech level Past suffix Quotative particle Resultative Retrospective Subject honorific Topic marker Transferentive

REFERENCES

Aikhenvald, A. and Dixon, R. (eds) (2003) Studies in Evidentiality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bybee, J. (1985) Morphology: A Study of the Relationship between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.


Kim: Evidentiality in Korean conversation 107 Chafe, W. (1986) ‘Evidentiality in English Conversation and Academic Writing’, in W. Chafe and J. Nichols (eds) Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, pp. 261–72. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Chafe, W. and Nichols, J. (eds) (1986) Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Fox, B. (2001) ‘Evidentiality: Authority, Responsibility, and Entitlement in English Conversation’, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 11: 167–92. Givón, T. (1982) ‘Evidentiality and Epistemic Space’, Studies in Language 6: 23–49. Goodwin, C. (1984) ‘Notes on Story Structure and the Organization of Participation’, in J. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action, pp. 225–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hill, J. and Irvine, J. (eds) (1993) Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jefferson, G. (1984) ‘Transcript Notation’, in J. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kamio, A. (1997) Territory of Information. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lee, H. (1991) ‘Tense, Aspect, and Modality: A Discourse-Pragmatic Analysis of Verbal Affixes in Korean from a Typological Perspective’, PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Mushin, I. (2001) Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance: Narrative Retelling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. and Thompson, S. (eds) (1996) Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Palmer, F. (1986) Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pomerantz, A. (1984a) ‘Giving a Source or Basis: The Practice in Conversation of Telling “How I Know”’, Journal of Pragmatics 8: 607–25. Pomerantz, A. (1984b) ‘Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments’, in J. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action, pp. 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sacks, H. (1984) ‘On Doing “Being Ordinary”’, in J. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action, pp. 413–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. and Jefferson, G. (1974) ‘A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation’, Language 50: 696–735. Sohn, H. (1986) Linguistic Expeditions. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company. Sohn, H. (1990) ‘Grammaticalization and Semantic Shift’, in Papers from the Seventh International Conference on Korean Linguistics, pp. 425–35. Song, J. (1998) ‘An maycumssi kkuth –te uy uymi kinung ey tayhaye’ [The Function of the Non-Terminal Suffix te], Kwukehak 32: 135–69. Trent, N. (1997) ‘Linguistic Coding of Evidentiality in Japanese Spoken Discourse and Japanese Politeness’, PhD dissertation, University of Texas, Austin. Willett, T. (1988) ‘A Cross-Linguistic Survey of the Grammaticization of Evidentiality’, Studies in Language 12: 51–97. Yang, I. (1972) ‘Korean Syntax: Case Markers, Delimiters, Complementation, and Relativization’, PhD dissertation, University of Hawaii. Yuen, S. (2001) ‘Socio-Pragmatic Functions of Korean Interactive Sentence-Enders: From a Politeness Perspective’, PhD dissertation, University of Hawaii.


108 Discourse Studies 7(1)

is a PhD graduate student in the Asian Languages and Cultures Department of the University of California, Los Angeles. Her research interests include evidentiality, epistemic stance, and conversational narratives. A D D R E S S : Asian Languages and Cultures Department, University of California, 290 Royce Hall, Box 951540, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1540, USA. [email: [email protected]]

M A RY S H I N K I M
