From honor to disparagement: The grammaticalization of — tapsiko in Korean

Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 28e42

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Pragmatics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

From honor to disparagement: The grammaticalization of d tapsiko in Korean Kyou-Dong Ahn Department of English Linguistics & Language Technology, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, 107 Imun-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 130-791, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 8 March 2018 Received in revised form 30 August 2019 Accepted 21 September 2019

Korean has some grammatical categories conveying the speaker’s subjective attitude or stance. Among them, there are a considerable number of constructions (e.g. dkocappaci and dko ancaiss), which underwent grammaticalization into a pejorative stance marker (Rhee 1996, Ahn 2005, Koo and Rhee 2016). The complex dtapsiko is one of those constructions conveying the disparagement of speakers toward events, information, or persons they encounter, in Present Day Korean (PDK). Despite the frequent and conventionalized use of dtapsiko as a pejorative stance marker in PDK, however, studies on its origin and grammaticalization into this function have been rarely represented in the literature. This paper thus aims to fill this gap by addressing the semantic and morphosyntactic development of dtapsiko into a pejorative stance marker, from a diachronic point of view. The objectives of this paper are to claim that: (a) a pejorative sense of dtapsiko is motivated by the interplay between the meaning of components dta, dko, and dopsi; (b) the decisive factor of the grammaticalization of dtapsiko into a pejorative marker is expansion of usage and compatibility of an honorific dopsi from the domain of honorification to that of stance marking. © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Pejorativity Negative stance Grammaticalization Honorific markers Intersubjectification Subjectification

1. Introduction Korean has some grammatical categories conveying the speaker's subjective attitude or stance.1 Among them, there are a considerable number of constructions (e.g., dko cappaci and dko ancaiss), which underwent grammaticalization into a pejorative stance marker (Rhee, 1996; Ahn, 2005, 2012; Koo and Rhee, 2016). The complex dtapsiko is one of those constructions conveying the disparagement of speakers toward events, information, or persons they encounter, in Present Day

(1) ciphoyha-n-tapsiko swulphan-man peli-e hold.assemblies-PRES-CONJ drinking.party-only hold-NF ‘(They) held a drinking party under the pretense of holding an assembly and….’

Korean (PDK).2 Consider example (1). E-mail address: [email protected]. The terminology of stance, or the speaker's stance, has been widely used in recent scholarship in linguistics. However, definitions and conceptions of this term are broad and varied from individual research backgrounds. Thus this word has not been fully elaborated or delineated. Furthermore, some different terminologies refer to the notion of stance. In this paper, the label of stance will be used to stand for subjectivity, a point of view, evaluation, attitude, interaction, etc. (cf. Biber et al., 1999; Dancygier and Sweetser, 2005; Nuyts, 2001; Smith, 2002; Englebretson, 2007: 2). 2 Pejorative speaking is understood as a way of expressing a negative attitude and degrading the person or object spoken about. 1

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.09.011 0378-2166/© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

K.-D. Ahn / Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 28e42

29

Example (1) illustrates colloquial usage of dtapsiko by which the speaker expresses his/her emotional attitude of disparagement toward the situation in which some people held a drinking bout on the pretext of holding an assembly. Despite the frequent and conventionalized use of dtapsiko as a pejorative stance marker in PDK, however, few studies on its origin and grammaticalization into this function are in the literature. This paper thus aims to fill this gap by addressing the semantic and morphosyntactic development of dtapsiko into a pejorative stance marker, from a diachronic point of view.3 The objectives of this paper are to argue that: (a) a pejorative sense of dtapsiko is motivated by the interplay between the meaning of components dta, dko, and dopsi; (b) the decisive factor of the grammaticalization of dtapsiko into a pejorative marker is expansion of usage (Hilpert, 2008; Himmelmann, 2004) and compatibility of an honorific dopsi from the domain of honorification to that of stance marking.4 This paper makes use of extensive synchronic and diachronic data. For synchronic data, excerpts from newspaper articles, websites, and blogs. For historical data, the corpus of the Korean language will be used to trace the development of dtapsiko into a stance marker from the 15th century to the 20th century. 2. Source construction and pejorative usage of dtapsiko 2.1. Source construction From a morphological point of view, the pejorative marker dtapsiko consists of three different grammatical components. The source construction and general syntagmas from which the derogatory stance marker dtapsiko developed is presented as in (2) and (3), respectively.

(2)

dta DEC

þ

dopsi Honorific Form

þ

dko CONN

>>>

dtapsiko Pejorative Marker

As shown in (2), dtapsiko is comprised of a declarative ending dta, an honorific form dopsi, and an NF connective particle dko.5 As will be discussed extensively, what is noticeable is that the honorific form dopsi is also a complex comprised of an honorific suffixdop and dsi: the former is a variant of the non-agent honorific marker dsAp (it has many allomorphic forms such as dAp, dcAp, dsA, dop, etc. in Middle Korean (MK)). The latter marks subject honorification but it does not have any variant forms. Note that traces of the formation and the development of dtapsiko into a pejorative marker are not observed in the corpus of Korean language. As will be discussed in section 5.2, the construction of dtapsiko and its use as a pejorative marker is first attested in the early 20th century in the corpus of Korean language. However, considering that the structure of dtapsiko is similar to that of a complementizer dtako, it can be hypothesized that dtapsiko underwent similar structural development of dtako (for a more detailed description, see Rhee, 2016: 38). (3) (a) Coordinated Structure I (b) Coordinate Structure II …ta] dhA/sAlp ‘say’] …ta] dopsi] dko dko (c) Subordinated Structure (d) Morpho-phonological Reduction …ta] dopsiko dtapsiko

3 Abbreviations: ACC, accusative; ADD, additive; ADN, adnominal; ADVZ, adverbializer; COMP, complementizer; COND, conditional; CONN, connective; CONJ, conjunctive; DAT, dative; DEC, declarative; EMPH, emphatic; END, ending; EXCL, exclamative; FUT, future; HON, honorific; IMP, imperative; INST, instrumental; NEG, negative; NF, nonfinite; NOM, nominative; NOMZ, nominalizer; OPT, optative; PERF, perfective; PDK, present-day Korean; PEJO, pejorative; PLUR, plural; PRES, present; PROG, progressive; PST, past; Q, interrogative; QUOT, quotative; RESUL, resultative; S.End, sentential ending; SEQ, sequential; TOP, topic; TRANS, transferentive; VOC, vocative. 4 An anonymous reviewer suggests that the word ‘grammaticalization’ in the title of this article should be changed to ‘pragmaticalization’, since the evolution of dtapsiko into a pejorative marker is largely attributed to the expansion of contexts of eopsi from honorification to stance marking. It must be pointed out, however, that the relationship of grammaticalization with pragmaticalization is far from clear, because, as other reviewer notes, the concept of pragmaticalization is still controversial. Diewald (2011) argues that pragmaticalization “an integral part of grammaticalization.” However, Lehmann (2013: 451) claims the concept of pragmaticalization must be distinguished from grammaticalization. Lehmann (2013: 451) states that “Consider the understanding emerging in a speech situation, the joint creation of sense by the interlocutors. Part of it is contributed by the meaning of the signs they use according to the rules of grammar. In other words, it is contributed by the language system. It is there that semantics resides. The sense of the utterance, however, is something that belongs to the speech situation. It involves the combination of the interlocutors' world knowledge, experience and assessment of the speech situation with their knowledge of the language system. Pragmatics is concerned with that portion of it all that does not belong to the language system and is, therefore, not coded in the utterance, but essentially inferred. If that is so and if grammaticalization is a process enriching the structure of the language system, it follows that pragmatics has no direct relationship with grammaticalization.” Following Lehmann's line of reasoning, it is quite possible that grammaticalization involves the processes of conventionalization or entrenchment by which the meanings of grammaticalized items or structures are not flexible according to the speech situation but specified by the language system. Considering that the complex dtapsiko is utilized as a conventionalized form expressing the speaker's subjective stance in the system of Korean, although the whole construction of dtapsiko lacks traces of developmental processes from the domain of honorification into pejorativity, its evolution into a marker conveying the speaker's emotional state can be understood as a case of grammaticalization. 5 The NF particle dko indicates ‘isolation’ of event1 and event2 (Koo, 1987; Rhee, 1996; 2007, 2008).

30

K.-D. Ahn / Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 28e42

Example (3) is a representation of a hypothesis about the developmental processes of dtapsiko from an honorific construction into a stance marker. Presumably, the first stage of this development is the occurrence of the verb salp (an honorific form of the verbum dicendi ha- 'say’ which appeared in Chinese payk in Hyangchal) in the middle position between dta and dko (for more detailed information, see Lee, 1973).6 The second stage may be the occurrence of the honorific form dopsi in the slot where the verb hA/sAlp took up. The third stage is presumed to be the loss of constituent boundaries between dopsi and the connective particle dko. The last stage is morphosyntactic fusion resulting in the coalescence of dtapsiko. The developmental processes of dtapsiko can be depicted as in Fig. 1:

Fig. 1. Developmental stages of PEJO dtapsiko.

Syntactically, dtapsiko functions as a clausal connective. It occurs complex clause-finally and introduces another phrase, which is assumed to have semantic relations such as causality or sequentiality with the preceding clause. In addition, dtapsiko is a coalescence in which its components, i.e. dta, dopsi, and dko comprising this construction cannot be distinguished or decomposed into parts. Semantically, the literal meaning of this source construction is ‘[…] honorably say that […] and […].' In this case, the speaker's role is that of a reporter: placed outside of a speech event, the speaker simply delivers what a high ranking person said from the third person point of view. The grammaticalized sense of dtapsiko, however, is quite different from the literal meaning. This marker, as discussed above, is exclusively used to convey the speaker's stance of disparagement of events, information, or persons, in PDK. Regarding the pejorative usage of dtapsiko, of importance is that the speaker's role is not merely that of a reporter delivering what a high-ranking person said. Instead, as an agent experiencing situations or events, the speaker conveys his/her negative stance toward them.

2.2. Pejorative usage of dtapsiko in present-day Korean 2.2.1. Disparagement of others Examples (4) through (8) illustrate the pejorative usage of dtapsiko in PDK.

(4)

cenmwunka-tul a-n-tapsiko kwatoha-n specialist-PLUR know-PRES-CONJ be.excessive-ADN cakicwucang ilsswu self.assertiveness be.always.doing 'Specialists always insist too much because they believe they know best.' (Komedi. com, 26 October, 2015)

Example (4) is the heading of an article in the newspaper, Komedi.com. In this example, the journalist, delivers his/her negative emotional state of disparagement of so-called specialists or experts who believe that they know best by using dtapsiko.

6 It is considered that the honorific marker dsAp was derived from an honorific marker dsalp. Historically, occurrence of dsalp is first attested in Middle Korean (in the 15th century), and it is assumed that dsalp originates from the verb saloita, which is an honorific form of the locution verb hA ‘speak’ (for more detailed descriptions, see Seo, 1988: 141 and Huh, 1975: 721).

K.-D. Ahn / Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 28e42 (5)

31

ilpon-uy cengtang-tul-un motwu-ka Japan-POSS political.party-PLUR-TOP all-NOM cengpha-lul ttena-ø ilpon kwukik-ul faction-ACC depart-NF Japan national.interest-ACC wiha-n-tapsiko hanmoksoli-lul nay-se for-PRES-CONJ one.voice-ACC produce-SEQ hapuyha-ta-poni cengcak iwusnala-tul-un agree.on-TRANS-because actually neighbouring.country-PLUR-TOP kulehtahal pantay-to moshaypo-ko so.much.as disapproval-ADD can.not-CONN ‘Since political parties of Japan, transcending factionalism, speak with one voice and come to an agreement to promote national interest, neighboring countries couldn't express opposition to Japan and …’ (Asia news agency, 6 March, 2017)

Example (5) is part of a news article criticizing the imperialistic ideas of some political parties of Japan. Similar to (4), the journalist in this example employs -tapsiko to disparage the situation in which the political parties of Japan are showing solidarity with each other to pursue only national interests and not caring about neighboring countries. (6) temincwutang chosenuywen-tul-uy The.Democratic.Party newly-elected.member.of.the.National.Assembly-PLUR-POSS imici-ka image-NOM

mwuchek very

ancoh-ass-ta be.bad-PST-DEC

uycenghwaltongha-n-tapsiko be.active.in.parliamentary.politics-PRES-CONJ

cwumin-tul-hanthey resident-PLUR-DAT

cangkwangsel-ul long.talk-ACC

nul-e.noh-un-ke-y kamcemyoin-i-ess-ta give-PERF-ADN-NOMZ-NOM black.mark-be-PST-DEC ‘Newly-elected members of the Democratic Party came to have a terrible image. Since the new members, in the name of administrative activities, harangued the residents, they were given a black mark by the residents.’ (Cenpwukilpo, 25 April, 2015)

Example (6) is an excerpt from a news article explaining why the Democratic Party of Korea suffered heavy losses in local elections in Jeolla Province. In (6), it is also apparent that dtapsiko is functioning as a vehicle conveying the speaker's subjective stance of undesirability toward the acts of the new members of the Democratic Party. Notably, regarding dtapsiko, the speaker is making disparaging remarks about the new members' patronizing acts, i.e. haranguing the residents, which in the writer's view have created a bad image of this political party in Jeolla Province. (7) 21seyki-nun phwungyolop-ko anilha-n salm-ul the.21st.century-TOP be.affluent-CONN be.easy-ADN life-ACC nwuli-nun chi-tul-i ppenppenhakeyto yumyengsey-lul enjoy-ADN people-PLUR-NOM brazenly popularity-ACC iyongha-ye make.use.of-CONN

mincwung-ul public-ACC

wiha-n-tapsiko care-PRES-CONJ

mayil everyday

thuwithe-ey yelcwungha-nun sitay-ø-ta twitter-on be.absorbed.in-ADN era-be-DEC ‘The 21st century is an era in which people enjoying an affluent life are absorbed in Twitter every day under the pretense of caring for the public, utilizing their popularity brazenly.’ (Sewulsinmwun, 16 March, 2012)

Example (7) is part of a news article criticizing the great obsession of rich and powerful people with Social Networking Services (SNS), especially Twitter. Specifically, the journalist expresses his/her scornful attitude toward affluent and influential people who are too absorbed in Twitter every day under the pretense of caring for the public. In this example, it is apparent that dtapsiko is exclusively used to convey the speaker's negative stance toward the situation. (8)

sinhakca-tul, swul-ul holccaki-mye yeyswul-ul theologian-PLUR, liquor-ACC sip-and art-ACC a-n-tapsiko ketulmekkeli-nun pwuca-tul know-PRES-CONJ act.arrogantly-ADN rich.person-PLUR ‘Theologians are the wealthy who keep sipping their alcohol and acting arrogantly, bragging that they know much about art.’ (Pressian, 9 September, 2012)

32

K.-D. Ahn / Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 28e42

Lastly, example (8) is an excerpt from a news article introducing a newly-published book, in which the protagonist, i.e. a Catholic priest, is portrayed as being tormented by religious doubts. Obviously, similar to the usage in (4) through (7), this construction is functioning as a vehicle manifesting the protagonist's stance of antipathy toward theologians, who are bacchantic and fond of showing off their knowledge about art. 2.2.2. Disparagement of self Note that apart from marking the speaker's pejorative stance toward situations or persons, this construction can also be used to represent self-degradation. As a case in point, let us look at the following examples (9) through to (11). (9) na ipen-ey-nun ceytaylo kongpwuha-l-ke-ø-lapsiko tosekwan-ey I this.time-at-TOP properly study-ADN-NOMZ-be-CONJ library-at ka-ss-nuntey go-PST-but

wuyenhi accidentally

chinkwu-tul-ul friend-PLUR-ACC

manna-e.kaci-ko meet-PERF-CONN

silkhes swuta-man ttel-taka wa-ss-ta as.much.as.one.likes chatter-only natter-TRANS come.back-PST-DEC ‘I went to the library to study hard. But I came across my friends and spent most of the time chattering. (Under tale community, 5 July, 2017)

In (9), we can see that the speaker demonstrates uncomfortable and complex feelings of compunction, regret, and self-depreciation about his/her behavior, i.e. chattering in the library, in that the speaker knows that it is discordant with what is expected from others. Of particular significance is that the function of dlapsiko is not to convey the speaker's belittlement of others or situations experienced but to convey this feeling to the speaker him/ herself.7 (10) na yelsimhi wuntongha-l-ke-ø-lapsiko chwulining-man I hard work.out-ADN-NOMZ-be-CONJ sportswear-only saceykki-ess-ta buy.rashly-PST-DEC ‘I bought some sportswear on the excuse of working out hard and staying healthy (but I ended up doing nothing. So, I think my behavior is just ridiculous).’ (Powder room, 16 June, 2017)

In (10), it is also shown that the construction dlapsiko, which is a variant of dtapsiko, is used to deliver the speaker's sarcasm about his/her behavior. Specifically, the speaker employs dlapsiko to deliver reproach to his/her purchase of sportswear. Presumably, what is shameful for the speaker is the fact that although he or she purchased sportswear on the pretext of exercising hard, the speaker, in fact, has not started to work out yet. (11) nay-ttaney-nun towacwu-n-tapsiko yelsimhi I-in.a.person's.wisdom-TOP help-PRES-CONJ hard ha-n-ke-ø-n-tey kyelkwuk sanhwang-man do-ADN-NOMZ-be-PRES-but finally situation-only akhwatoy-key mantul-ess-ta grow.worse-ADVZ make-PST-DEC ‘I worked hard with the intention of helping him/her, but I finally made the situation grow worse.’ (Tanangtokkaypi, 7 June, 2017)

Lastly, in (11), it is also shown that by employing dlapsiko, the speaker expresses a guilty conscience and a disparaging attitude toward him/herself because the speaker's act of helping others which is offered from the heart made the situation even worse than before.8 Regarding the grammaticalized function and meaning of dtapsiko discussed above, two important questions can be raised: How is this construction grammaticalized into a pejorative/derogatory stance marker in PDK? What developmental processes are involved in the evolution of this structure into a pejorative stance marker? They are quite intriguing and deserve attention. In the following section, we will explore these issues in detail. 3. Discussion: expansion of contexts and development of dopsi into a negative stance marker As discussed in section 1, the emergence of a pejorative sense of dtapsiko is largely attributed from expansion of contexts of dopsi from honorification to stance-marking. Given the semantic relevance of dopsi to dtapsiko, provided

7 The sentence-ender ela is an allomorph of eta, and the construction elapsiko is a morphophenemically-controlled allomorph of etapsiko, appearing after the copula i- ‘be’. 8 Pragmatically, this usage seems to be useful for the speaker to escape criticism or censure from others. By making the self-derogatory remark, the speaker may try to avoid criticism on his/her acts, delivering the message that ‘at first, I didn't intend to do this. So please don't blame me.' Besides, by putting forth the speaker him/herself as a third party in the discourse, the speaker objectifies the event (one involving the speaker) as a communicative package and distances him/herself from the event, so that he/she implicitly delivers the message: ‘I know what I did, but I couldn't help it at that time. Anyway, I feel sorry about that now.’

K.-D. Ahn / Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 28e42

33

that we examine how this form develops a stance marking sense from a diachronic point of view, we can have a clear picture of the grammaticalization of dtapsiko into a pejorative marker. In this section, to further the understanding of the evolution of dopsi into a stance marker and its semantic influences on the grammaticalization of dtapsiko, we will discuss its structural origin and functional extension into the domain of pejorativity, from a diachronic point of view. 3.1. Origin of dopsi: non-agent honorific marker dsAp In Middle Korean (MK), Korean has developed a grammatical system of honorification in which the honorific markers dsAp, dsi, and dYi were used to raise an argument above the speaker. Kim (2005: 29d37) argues that dsAp pertains to the ‘thematic structure’ of a sentence and this marker can be used only if the speaker sees that the ‘non-agent’ argument has social superiority to the ‘agent’ argument of a sentence. The marker dsi is informally characterized as ‘subject honorification.' It demonstrates that the grammatical subject of a sentence has some social superiority to the speaker (Lee, 1973; Seo, 1994; Kim, 2005). The marker dYi is informally characterized as ‘hearer honorification’ in that it treats the hearer as a higher status entity than the speaker in the speech context (Lee, 1973; Seo, 1994; Kim, 2005). The marker dsAp is informally characterized as ‘non-agent honorification.' It treats the non-agent argument such as theme, patient, experiencer, etc. as a higher-status entity than the ‘agent’ argument of the clause (Suk, 2004; Yang, 2000; Lee, 1973, 1989). As has been analyzed by many researchers (Ahn, 2002; Koopman, 2005; Hasegawa, 2005; Toribio, 1990; Ura, 1993), argument honorification is an instance of agreement between a verb and the argument as a syntactic phenomenon, analogous to subject-verb agreement for person, number, or gender. In this agreement relationship, the argument has some honorific feature specification, which the verb possesses. Analogously, argument honorification in Late Middle Korean marked by dsAp, dsi, and dYi falls under the case of agreement by which the argument inherited honorific feature specification from the markers dsAp, dsi, and dYi marked on a verb. Regarding the thematic function of this honorific marker, what is important to note is the speaker's role in describing situations and the hierarchical relations among participants in the situation. Consider example (12). (12) YONGWANG-kwa dragon.king-and KYEY Buddhist.precepts SAMKWI OKYEYPEP-ul

NACHALNYE -wa-i female.demon-COM-NOM tut-cAp-aciita hear-HON-OPT

pwutye-kkui Buddha-DAT ha-yanal say-CONN

nilu-si-ni kacang kis-sAp-a-ha-mye say-HON-CONN very.much be.delighted-HON-NF-do-CONN ‘When the dragon king and a female demon requested Buddhist precepts, the Buddha preached three treasures and the five Buddhist commandments to them. Upon hearing the treasures and commandments, they were greatly pleased.’ (1459 Welinsekpo 7,47a)

In example (12), we should put much attention to the fact that the speaker who invites the usage of dsAp is not a protagonist of the given event but a reporter passing on what happened in the event. More specifically, placed outside of the event, the speaker is describing what happened between the Buddha and the dragon king and a female demon and tries to portray other sentient beings' i.e. the dragon king and a female demon's, internal states or feelings, from a third person point of view.9 In this case, the speaker neither has direct access to other sentient beings' internal states nor enables them to describe his/her emotional state. The speaker is, however, restricted to deliver what he/she can objectively recognize in the event.10 3.2. Evolution of dsAp into hearer honorification and stance marker However, moving into Early Modern Korean (EModK, 1600-1750), the honorific dsAp is extended to the domain of hearer honorification. This stage of diachrony is significant in that the evolution into a hearer honorific marker enables this marker to express the speaker's subjective emotional states. Usage of hearer honorification of dsAp is illustrated in example (13).

9 Given that the agent argument showing deference to the Buddha is the grammatical subjects, ‘the Dragon king’ and ‘a female demon’ of this sentence, the target of dsAp marked on the verb kis ‘be delighted’ is the non-agent argument, the Buddha. 10 Three treasures (SAMKWI) refer to Buddha, the law of Buddha and a Buddhist monk. The five Buddhist commandments (OKYEYPEP) are religious precepts against murder, theft, adultery, falsehood, and intemperance.

34

K.-D. Ahn / Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 28e42

(13) a. na-nAn kasAm-ul alph-a I-TOP chest-ACC be.sick-NF hAn tAl-nama nwu-e.is-sAp-taka one month-.a.bit.over lie-PERF-HON-TRANS ‘Because of chest pain, I have been in bed over a month and…’ (1602 Hyenphwungkwakssienkan, 1) b. cAsik-un tangsi mwusAhi is-sAp-ko child-NOM at.that.time be.unscathed exist-HON-CONN ‘At that time, my children were all unscathed and safe and…’ (1602 Hyenphwungkwakssienkan, 110)

When we compare the usage of dsAp in (13) to that in (12), it becomes apparent that the target of dsAp marked on the verb nwu ‘lie’ as in (13a) and mwusAhi is ‘be safe and sound’ as in (13b) is not the non-agent argument but ‘the hearer (¼ the addressee)’ of the letter.11 About the extension of this marker into hearer honorification, a remarkable aspect is the change of the speaker's role in the sentences. For example, unlike how the speaker's role and perspective is shown in (12), the speaker in (13a) is seen to describe his/ her own experience of being stricken with sickness, as a protagonist of the event. In (13b), we can also observe that the speaker is saying his/her confirmation about the children's safety at a particular time. These sentences demonstrate that as dsAp grew into the domain of hearer honorification, it becomes compatible to convey the speakers' own internal states or experiences to addressees. This change, however, is by no means abrupt but gradual. The first phase of this change may be sameness or congruity of a referent of the agent argument and the grammatical subject with the speaker. As the agent argument repetitively occurs in the slot of the grammatical subject and the speaker takes the role of the grammatical subject in sentences, dsAp is gradually understood as an honorific marker demonstrating ‘speakers’ deference to the non-agent argument of the clause. The second phase of the grammaticalization of dsAp is congruity of the referent of the non-agent argument with the hearer. As a referent of the non-agent argument is increasingly associated with the hearer in discourse, particularly in commercial transactions, dsAp becomes conventionalized into a hearer honorification marker. Note that what is particularly significant is the fact that as speakers are enabled to convey their own internal or perceptual states with dsAp, its usage further extends to contexts where speakers express their subjective or emotional stance toward events or information. This is quite intriguing considering that as soon as the speaker represents himself/herself as the agent of events, dsAp is subsequently able to convey the speakers' epistemological stance toward the outside world. This usage is illustrated in the examples (14) and (15). (14) na-y nimkum-i kuluhA-si-l I-NOM king-NOM act.wronglyeHONe-HON-ADN il-i kyesi-l-ka ces-sAp-nola deed-NOM exist.HON-ADN-Q be.anxious.about-HON-DEC ‘I am anxious about whether my king commits unrighteous acts or not.’ (1613 Twusienhaycwungkanpon 1, 2a)

(15) CWU SENWANG tasi nilAwatAshyam-Al
an again reconstruction-ACC Zhou.Dynasty King Xu wuli nimkum-skui pAla-Ap-noni our king-to desire-HON-END ‘I hope my king rebuilds my country, just like the king
an (who rebuilt the Zhou Dynasty in ancient Xu China).’ (1613 Twusienhaycwungkanpon 3, 63a)

In (14), we can see that the honorific dsAp marked on the psychological verb ces ‘be anxious/concerned about’ is used to convey the speaker's concern/anxiety about the King's possibly-happen-unrighteous acts in the future. A similar case can also be found in the usage of the honorific dAp, which is an allomorph of dsAp, as in (15). Specifically, dAp marked on the psychological verb pAla ‘desire’ is used to express the speaker's subjective stance of aspirations, request, or demands to the King,
an of the Zhou Dynasty in ancient China.12 asking for the rebuilding of the devastated country just like that of King Xu 3.3. Formation and usage of dopsi as a negative stance marker It is important to note that hearer honorific dsAp further develops into a stance marker. Specifically, as the honorific dsAp (including other allomorphs such as dAp, dcAp, dsA, dop, etc.) grammaticalized into hearer honorific markers, it began to form two different types of complexes with other honorific markers in Late Modern Korean (LModK, the 18th century). These

11

Example (13) is part of an epistolary composition in the 17th century. As will be discussed in detail later, this stance-marking function of dsAp coupled with the first person pronoun ‘I’ seems to facilitate the emergence of a pejorative sense of dopsi. In other words, the stance-marking function of dsAp enables grammaticalization in which the pejorative-marking sense of dopsi can be formulated and thereby contributes enormously to the grammaticalization of dtapsiko in Korean. This will be discussed later in detail. 12

K.-D. Ahn / Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 28e42

35

complexes are divided into two groups. The first group comprises complexes such as dsApnAy, dsApsAy, dsApso, dcApsAy, dApso, dApnAy, dApsAy, etc., all of which are conjoined with hearer honorific markers such as dnAy, dsAy, or dso, etc., in EModK.13 The second group comprises complexes such as dsApsi, dApsi, and dopsi, all of which are conjoined with dsi which expresses subject honorification (Kim, 2005: 96-111).14 In LModK, however, the occurrence of dsApsi and dApsi is gradually decreased and rarely used in sentences but the complex dopsi became a predominant form of the second group (for more detailed descriptions, see Seo, 1988, 1994 and Kim, 2005: 119-120).15 Of particular significance, with regard to this structural divergence, is that while the complexes in the first group remained as honorific markers in this period, the complexesdsApsi, dopsi and dApsi are shown to extend their use to mark the speakers’ negative stance or attitude toward the situation or events. In fact, the honorific suffix forms dsupni, dupni, dupti, etc. in PDK are relics of the complexes dsApnAy, dApnAy, dAptAy, etc. This phenomenon is remarkable because the compounds which marked the same honorific function take different paths of grammaticalization due to specific motivational factors. The stance-marking sense of dsApsi, dopsi and dApsi is illustrated in the following example (16). (16) a. kwenhA-noni cyey syenkun simwu-si-mye syeysA advise-CONN properly good.deed plant-HON-and worldly.affairs thamchak be.covetous

nemo too.much

mal-ko not-CONN

nyempwul Buddhist.prayer

tongcham hA-opsi-so participation do-HON-IMP ‘I would like to advise you to please not be too much interested in worldly affairs, but practice good deeds and participate in Buddhist prayer as much as possible.’ (1776 Yempwulpokwenmwun 35a) b. al-a mwues hA-opsi-li-iska know-NF what do-HON-FUT-Q ‘It's none of your business (Mind your own business).’ (18?? Hancwunglok 430)

As can be seen in (16), dApsi and dopsi still mark the speaker's sense of politeness to the hearer. From a pragmatic point of view, however, these complexes can be understood as carrying considerable amounts of weight in expressing the speaker's negative emotional states toward the situations than in expressing politeness. For example, in (16a), the complex dopsi conveys the speaker's negative stance toward undesirability about the hearer's heightened/excessive interest in worldly affairs. The marker dopsi in (16b) also expresses the speaker's emotional states of disregard, disrespect, contempt, or disdain for the hearer's interrogation about something which the speaker does not want to talk about. The structural and functional development of dopsi can be depicted as follows (see Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Structural and functional development of dopsi.

13

Hearer honorific suffixes dnAy, dsAy, and dso are first attested in Late Middle Korean (see Lee, 1973; Seo, 1994). Among the complexes dsApnAy, dsApsAy, dsApso, dApnAy, dApsAy, etc., dsApnAy is the most common complex. Between dsApsi and dApsi, occurrence of dApsi is much more frequent than dsApsi (for more detailed descriptions, see Kim, 2005: 98). 15 The complexes dsApnAy, dsApsAy, dsApso, dcApsAy, dApso, dApnAy, dApsAy, etc., however, were frequently used and maintained their structural properties in this period. 14

36

K.-D. Ahn / Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 28e42

4. Cognitive factors of grammaticalization of dopsi into stance marker 4.1. Occurrence of the first person pronoun ‘I’ with dsAp The functional extension of dopsi into a stance marker is initially enabled by the change of speakers' role from an observer located outside of events to a first person participant in the events. In section 3.2, we discussed that as dsAp grows into the domain of hearer honorification, speakers are enabled to express their internal states or experiences. Regarding this change, a notable aspect is that the referent of the agent argument conveying politeness to the hearer shows change from a third party to the speaker ‘I,' and the speaker takes on the role of grammatical subject too. In other words, as dsAp grows into the domain of hearer honorification, the role of the speaker expands to become both the agent-argument and the grammatical subject of the same sentence. This assertion can partly be supported by Benveniste (1971) and Iwasaki (1993). They claim that the occurrence of the firstperson pronoun in a sentence is a visible manifestation of the emergence and increase of subjectivity. For example, Benveniste (1971: 226) argues that the first-person pronoun is qualitatively different from third-person pronouns about ‘subjectivity,' and the use of the first-person pronoun as the grammatical subject is one of the clearest examples of subjectivity manifestation in language. Benveniste (1971: 226) continues that the first-person pronoun does not signify any concepts or individuals, but "refers to the act of individual discourse in which it is pronounced, and by this, it designates the speaker" (1971: 226). Iwasaki (1993: 34) also claims that subjectivity shows strong manifestation, not surprisingly, in the interpretation or use of ‘mental activity' verbs with the first person pronoun (cf. Bolinger, 1971: 545 and Benveniste, 1971: 229). These statements have in common that the subjectivity of discourse is a combination of the speaking self or a locutionary agentdin this case, the first person pronoun ‘I’ dand a locutionary agent's perspective as shaping linguistic expression. With respect to the stance-marking function of dsAp and dAp in (14) and (15), one can cast doubt on development of a stance-marking sense of them, in that the occurrence of this sense can be understood as being induced by the meaning of the psychological verbs, ces ‘be anxious/concerned about’ as in (14) and pAla ‘desiderate’ as in (15), with which dsAp and dAp are conjoined, respectively. Admittedly, the emergence of a stance-marking sense of these markers seems to have to do with the meaning of the psychological verbs. Notwithstanding the semantic dependency of dsAp on these psychological verbs, however, the co-occurrence of dsAp and dAp with these verbs is significant in that this is conditioned by the extension of the speaker's role from an observer to experiencer and the occurrence of ‘I’ in the slot of the grammatical subject. Because of this process, it seems that the honorificdsAp becomes compatible with such psychological verbs as ces ‘be anxious/concerned about’ and pAla ‘desiderate.' 4.2. Subjectification and intersubjectification Since Traugott introduced the notions of subjectification and intersubjectification in a series of studies (Traugott, 1982, € nig, 1991, among others), they have been used as important no1988, 2003; Traugott and Dasher, 2002; Traugott and Ko tions in the explication of linguistic phenomena. Indeed, many researchers have presented numerous cases to support the use of these powerful concepts to characterize the semantic change in grammaticalization. Subjectification is a pragmatic-semantic process whereby meanings become increasingly based in speaker's beliefs about, or attitudes towards events, situations, or what they are discussing. Subjectification associates with how certain expressions that initially articulate concrete, lexical, and objective meanings have comedthrough repeated use in local syntactic contextsdto serve abstract, pragmatic, interpersonal, speaker-based functions. According to Traugott (1982), semanticdpragmatic change tends to show directionality in which the initial propositional (ideational), content can gain either textual (cohesion-making), €nig, 1991 also and furthermore expressive (and other pragmatic) meanings, or both.16 Traugott (1989) and Traugott and Ko suggest that meanings tend to undergo subjectification: they tend to ‘‘become increasingly based in the speaker's subjective € nig, 1991: 208d209). belief/attitude toward the proposition’’ (see Traugott, 1989:35; Traugott and Ko Meanings also tend to undergo intersubjectification, i.e. they tend to index ‘‘speaker attitude and belief, and expressing attention to the hearer's self’’ (Cuyckens et al. 2010: 1). In the current literature on grammaticalization, (inter)subjectification indeed seems to be a robust phenomenon attested across languages (Stein and Wright, 1995; Traugott and Dasher, 2002 and the works therein). With respect to the development of dopsi and eApsi as in (16), their semantic change into stance marking is a clear instance of subjectification, in that the change shows development from propositional content, i.e. the states of affairs of the external world, to the content that is situated in the speaker's mental world. For example, the hearer's heightened/excessive interest in worldly affairs as in (16a) and the act of the hearer's interrogation about something which the speaker does not want to talk about as in (16b) become subjectified and are recruited to vindicate the speaker's perspective or interpretation of undesirability in the mental world, thus giving more room for reinforcing the speaker's belief/attitude towards the state of affairs of the events (see Rhee, 2009, 2012). The development of the stance marking function of dsAp and the pejorative marking function dopsi and dApsi are also instances of intersubjectification in the sense that the speaker has the intent of displaying his or her emotional stance toward

16

That can be summarized as: propositional > textual > expressive.

K.-D. Ahn / Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 28e42

37

the addressee and this intent is explicitly marked by a linguistic means of honorification. In other words, the development of the stance-marking function of the honorific markers dsAp, dopsi and dApsi can be said to be motivated by the faceconsideration of the addressee, and is thus intersubjectification. However, as Koo and Rhee (2016: 319) note, discussion of intersubjectification in the literature is restricted mainly to upward-changes (consideration of social need and face), whereas pejoration involves downward-changes. Considering that the force of abusive language is far greater than that of considerate, polite, amicable language, as may be contrasted with, for instance, slurs and politeness formulae, more serious scholastic attention to the pejoratives from an intersubjectification perspective is called for. 4.3. Lower degrees of syntagmatic compatibility One of the significant causes involved in the development of dopsi into the pejorative-marking function seems to be its lower degree of syntagmatic compatibility with other verbs. As discussed in sections 3.2 and 3.3, moving into Early Modern Korean, the hearer honorific dsAp (including other allomorphs such as dAp, dcAp, dsA, dop, etc.) began to form two different groups (dsApnAy vs. dApsi and dopsi) of the complexes with other hearer honorific markers. The differences between these two groups lie in the fact that the complexes in the first group can occur in a sentence where the speaker (the first person ‘I') has dual roles of the grammatical subject and the agent argument at the same time, and the hearer takes on the role of the non-agent argument in the sentence. Also, the complexes of this group showed a high degree of morphosyntactic compatibility. They can mark any type of verb such as accusative and ergative. In contrast, the second group occurs in sentences in which the hearer has the dual roles of grammatical subject and non-agent argument (i.e. hearer ¼ grammatical subject ¼ non-agent argument).17 Also, the second group shows a low degree of morphosyntactic compatibility, and so it marks ergative verbs. The different usage of these complexes are illustrated in example (18). (18) a. myechul-manuina PANSA o-l-ko cimcyak-i how.many.days-in reply come.back-FUT-Q guess-NOM kyeysi-l kes-ini nilA-Apso tus-cApsay exist.HON-FUT NOMZ-END say-HON listen-HON ‘I know that you now guess how many days it will take to get a reply. Tell me, I will listen to you.' (1676 Chephaysine 5,8a)

b. MANSA-lAl twulo skuli-si-m-ul everything-ACC all.around favorably.consider-HON-NOMZ-ACC mit-e-sApnAy-ita believe-NF-HON-DEC ‘I hope you generously overlook my faults and weaknesses.’ (1676 Chephaysine 9,14a) c. yosAi i chiwi-yey taytoi esti kye-Apsy-an-ko these.days this cold-in everyone how exist.HON-HON-PROG-Q ‘How have you been doing, in this cold weather?’ (1602 Hyenpwungkwakssienkan 1) d. sywukohA-Apsi-ney give.oneself.trouble-HON-END ‘Thank you for giving yourself trouble.' (1676 Chephaysine 1,21a)

In (18a), the speaker ‘I’ takes dual roles of the agent argument and the grammatical subject of the predicate tus ‘listen’ conjoined with an honorific form dcApsAy. In this case, the target of honorification is the hearer, who is the non-agent argument of this verb. The same is true with (18b). The speaker is represented in the role of the agent argument and the grammatical subject of the verb mit ‘believe’ which is conjoined with an honorific form dsApnAy, and the target of honorification is the hearer, who is the non-agent argument of this honorific complex. Examples (18c) and (18d), however, exhibit different properties. In (18c), the hearer is observed to carry the functions of the grammatical subject and the non-agent argument of one-argument predicate, i.e. a stative verb, kyesi ‘exist.' In (18d), it is also identified that the hearer carries functions the grammatical subject and the non-agent argument of a stative verb swukoha ‘be toilsome.' Considering that these two groups of complexes perform the function of hearer honorification in Early Modern Korean, it can be hypothesized that they might have competed with each other. As is immediately apparent, the winner of this

17 Kim (2005: 95-105) states that the grammaticalization of dsApsi and dApsi into hearer honorification was influenced by the high-frequency complexes dsApnAy, dsApsAy, dsApso, etc. According to Kim, in Early Modern Korean, dsApsi and dApsi were used to convey the speaker's deference to the grammatical subject, which is the non-agent argument of a sentence. Later, influenced by high frequency of use of the complexes dsApnAy, dsApsAy, dsApso, etc., all of which already grammaticalized into hearer honorific markers in Early Modern Korean, the complexes of dsApsi and dApsi were also driven to grammaticalize into complexes marking hearer honorification, in sentences where the referent of the grammatical subject and the non-agent argument converges into ‘the hearer’.

38

K.-D. Ahn / Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 28e42

competition is not hard to predict: it is the complexes dsApnAy, dsApsAy, dsApso, etc. As discussed above, since dsApsi and dApsi show lesser degrees of morphosyntactic compatibility than dsApnAy, dsApsAy, dsApso, etc., therefore occurrence of those in the second group as hearer honorific markers might have decreased and become rare in sentences. As a result, dsApsi and dApsi came to gradually lose their status as a hearer honorific form, whereas the complexes such as dsApnAy, dsApsAy, dsApso, etc. grew into dominant honorific complexes in Early and Late Modern Korean, i.e. specialization (Hopper, 1991). This claim can be supported by the fact that the honorific suffix forms dsupni, dupni, dupti, etc. in Present Day Korean are relics of the complexes dsApnAy, dApnAy, dAptAy, etc. (Kim, 2005: 118d121). 4.4. Strategic use of pejorativity The grammaticalization of dopsi into the pejorative stance marker seems to be motivated by the strategic use of dopsi for highlighting the speaker's subjective stance of disparagement towards events or a given situation. From a cognitive and pragmatic point of view, honorification expresses the speaker's sense of social or psychological distance towards others including the interlocutor. Honorification or politeness is especially a culturally defined phenomenon representing the sense of psychological distance towards those interlocutors who are socially superior to the speaker (Brown and Levinson, 1987; Stephan et al., 2010). However, when this sense of psychological distance is transferred to the domains of fact, information, or events, all of which are understood as undesirable, negative, or dissenting from a speaker's value system, the sense of psychological distance can be or is likely to be perceived as emotional distance. When it comes to a locutionary agent's, i.e. a speaker's, perception of emotional distance from the information, Suzuki (1998: 429-462) states that this perceptual process is a subcase of ‘incorporation of information.' In her study on evaluative markers in Japanese, Suzuki (1998: 431) suggests that “[i]ncorporation of information refers to the process by which the speaker acquires a piece of information and internalizes the information”.18 There are several variables that influence the incorporation process. Among them is an important variable that affects the incorporation process: the speaker's emotional distance from the information. One is likely to be emotionally attached to information when it is well incorporated into one's belief system. By contrast, one would feel resistant to or detached from information when it is not incorporated or integrated into one's value system (Suzuki, 1998: 431). The extension of dopsi into the pejorative stance marking may have been first motivated by the speaker's construal of psychological distance from an event or information. For instance, in the on-going change of the function from honorific to pejorative, when speakers encounter an event or information which does not match well with their belief/value system, the speakers' mind is as if saying, ‘since the state of affairs of the event is far from what I perceive as desirable, I do not have an affinity for it.’ Apparently, the image schema of ‘the event is psychologically distant from the speaker's system’ does not represent physical relations in the real-world. This representability relation exists only in the speaker's subjective mind, where two entities, although there is no physical distance between them, are conceived of as being metaphorically/ psychologically distant from each other and of one of them as having undesirable quality of certain kind than the other. In this case, what is desirable for the speaker is his/her value system but what is undesirable for the speaker is the event. These conceptual processes seem to induce and facilitate the strategic use of dopsi in expressing the disparaging and pejorative stance of the speaker. For example, in a situation where the speaker is making a statement with a communicative purpose, if a particular event or information is construed as being undesirable for the speaker's value system, it is likely that the event can be presented as an object of antipathy, contempt, or disdain. In this case, the speaker's statement intends to express or put forth the speaker's subjective point of view, so that the speaker lets the hearer know about how much the event or information is understood as absurd and undesirable in the speaker's mind. This may be due to the human propensity to give emphasis on the distance, as evidenced by the fact that humans use degrees of distance, i.e. farness or nearness, as those representing their emotional closeness or detachment, even more resistance in discourse-pragmatic context (cf. Heine, 1997; Svorou, 1993; Lakoff and Johnson, 1980). A similar, but not the same, strategic use of a grammatical item for expressing the speaker's stance of negativity can be found in grammaticalization of the English preposition for. Elucidating the combined operation of metonymization and subjectification in the grammaticalization of this item, Rhee (2007: 222) states that among the various stages of development, its extension from the sense of ‘advantage’ to 'disadvantage' is quite interesting in that it falls outside the natural way of metonymic inference. Given that the links between any two adjacent stages, in the metonymic change, are not deterministically motivated, but are simply results of highlighting a particular facet of the event/state designated by the sense of the previous stage, the emergence of the ‘disadvantage’ sense out of the sense of ‘advantage’ is atypical as illustrated in example (19) (taken from Rhee, 2007: 222). Concerning this phenomenon, Rhee (2007: 221) claims that the emergence of the sense of 'disadvantage' may have to do with the strategic use of irony as a figure of speech. In other words, by the speaker's communicative purpose and discoursepragmatic strategies, the advantage sense can be used as a vehicle conveying the speaker's sense of irony. This may be because

18 The degree of incorporation is high when the speaker has digested and integrated information into his/her value system. The degree is lower when the process of integration is blocked for some reason.

K.-D. Ahn / Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 28e42

39

(19) a. I will swinge his Jacket for him. (1740, Xmas Entertainm. ii. 12) b. It would have been a mercy if I hadn't broken some of his bones for him. (1855, Smedley. H. Coverdale liii)

antonyms share most features with their opposites while differing in only the feature of [þ/e] (for more detailed descriptions, see Rhee, 2007: 209-231). Perhaps, the beginning of the strategic use of the pejorative may, in part, be grounded on a historical reason. Considering that dApsi and dopsi marked a similar function of honorification as dsApnAy, dsApsAy, dsApso, etc., the fact that only the former established the negative stance-marking role is quite impressive and requires serious scholastic attention. Presumably, the loss of the grammatical status as honorific forms is attributed to the lower degrees of syntagmatic compatibility. Figuratively speaking, since dsAp and dAp developed the stance-marking role in Late Middle Korean, dApsi and dopsi were open to taking another path of grammaticalization. As discussed above, given that honorification expresses the speaker's sense of social or psychological distance towards others including the interlocutor, dApsi and dopsi might have been considered to be suitable items for expressing the disparaging stance of a speaker in particular discourse contexts. This may be due to the fact that honorification shares the speaker's construal of metaphorical or psychological distance with pejoration while differing in only one feature. As a result, they could be reinstated in the status of grammatical items with an opposite sense to the complexes such as dsApnAy, dsApsAy, dsApso, etc. 5. Occurrence of pejorative usage of dtapsiko in Korean 5.1. Semantic contribution by particles In the grammaticalization of dtapsiko into the pejorative marker, the role of particles is of particular significance. In the literature, it has been pointed out that what participates in grammaticalization is not a single lexeme but a construction (Bybee et al., 1994; Hopper and Traugott, 2003). Rhee (2007) presents a claim that particles, which have often been relegated to peripheral categories in grammar, in fact, play significant roles in determining the resultant categories and semantics of grammaticalized markers. For example, elucidating grammaticalization of peripheral perfectives in Korean, Rhee (2008: 49) states that the completion sense, essential in perfectives, comes from semantics of the verbs and particles. The semantic contribution of particles holds true in the pejorative marking function of dtapsiko. The connective particles such as de and dko in Korean have the sequentiality marking function in common. The difference lies in the fact that de indicates the consolidation of event1 and event2 but dko indicates the isolation of event1 and event2 (Koo, 1987; Rhee, 1996, 2007). The declarative ending dta demonstrates that the utterance of the speaker or the making of a sentence has been completed. The semantic effects of this ending particle are to give language users a sense of isolation, in that a statement or sentence that ends with dta can be perceived as a bounded entity. Thus, as Ahn (2017) argues, assuming that the NF dko indicates isolation of event1 and event2 and the declarative ending dta marks the completion of an utterance or a sentence, the speaker's interpretation of the relationship between events linked by dta and eko may be ‘event A and (then) event B. Besides, given that the complex dopsi conveys the sense of pejorative, it may be the case that an event or situation followed by the construction dtapsiko is likely to be construed as an undesirable single conceptual entity. As a result of the semantic contribution of the particles, the whole structure of dtapsiko expresses the proposition of ‘Undesirable situation1 leads to Undesirable situation2.’ 5.2. First attestation of dtapsiko in Korean Usage of dtapsiko as a pejorative marker is first attested in the early 20th century in the corpus of Korean language. The Corpus of the Korean Language contains 1.6 million words of written texts ranging from the 15th century to the 20th century. A word phrase, in Korean, refers to a minimal typographic unit of word spacing in a sentence. Since a majority of word phrases contain more than one word, and some novels in Late Modern Korean do not space between word phrases, the number of words included in this corpus is assumed to be around 2.0 million. Among the text types included in the corpus are poems, novels, letter writings, newspapers, historical records, etc. It shows only four occurrences, and variants of this construction are not observed in the corpus. Notwithstanding the rare occurrence of dtapsiko in the early 20th century, however, it is important to note that this construction exhibits properties of a free-standing negative stance marker. As a case in point, let us look at the following example (20). As shown in example (20), dtapsiko performs a function of a pejorative marker. For example, the speaker in (20a) employs dtapsiko to convey disparagement toward a situation where scholars still look upon impractical knowledge as important in the modern period. In (20b), dtapsiko also expresses the speaker's condemnation of a self-righteous official, he should have looked into the matter closely and then made the speaker accountable for snatching innocent girls away from their home for

40

K.-D. Ahn / Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 28e42

(20) a. syowui hakcAtul-un syenghyen-ul ponpas-nAn-tapsiko so.called scholars-TOP sage-ACC emulate-PRES-CONJ hyangkyo-wa syewen tung-ul syelsihA-ko Confucian.school-and lecture.hall and.so.on-ACC establish-CONN lyeysik-kwa hemwun-man ceremony-and a.piece.of.writing.without.substance-only sywungsanghA-nun pwungsyok pursue-TOP custom ‘So-called scholars established Confucian schools and lecture halls, and pursued empty formalities and frothy writings, saying that they emulate sages…’ (1902 Sinhakwelpo 2)

b. manil oyelkopyekchi-n kolsAyngwen kamli-lul if be.antiquated-ADN narrow.minded.person minister.of.trade-ACC masnas-tumyen meet-COND

cyeywal boastfully

kongsA-lul government.affairs-ACC

cal well

hA-n-tapsiko do-ADN-CONJ

lyangkanye-lal ekcilo daughter.from.good.families-ACC against.one'swill mayumsiki-nAni be.forced.into.prostitution-CONN ‘If we had met a self-righteous official, he should have looked into the matter closely and then made us accountable for snatching innocent girls away from their home for prostitution.’ (1911 Molanpyeng 50) c. mwulsAyk-to molo-ko cyey-sangcen-wihA-n-tapsiko circumstances-and do.not.know-CONN self's-master-serve-PRES-CONJ kyeycipnyen-un simswul sanAynom-un wuakpwuli-nan woman-TOP grumpiness man-TOP act.ferociously-ADN skol pokisulh-ye situation hate.to.see-NF ‘I hate to see the situation where the woman behaves badly and the man acts ferociously with the intention of caring for their master.’ (1908 Pinsangsel 795)

prostitution. In (20c), dtapsiko is used to convey the speaker's criticism of violent acts of a man and a woman on the pretense of serving their master. What is noticeable is that dtapsiko shows not any sense of honorification but rather one of pejoration. As discussed above, since the grammaticalization of dtapsiko into a pejorative marker is still at the incipient stage in Late Modern Korean, derogatory usage of this construction is not observed in many texts. However, because the fact that dtapsiko lost a sense of honorification in PDK, we can hypothesize that the grammaticalization of dtapsiko into a pejorative marker might have been facilitated and accelerated in Late Modern Korean. As a result, this construction is now conventionalized, i.e. by specialization, into a full-fledged derogatory marker in PDK.

6. Conclusion This paper explicates the formation and grammaticalization of dtapsiko and the cognitive processes by which this construction grammaticalizes into a pejorative stance marker in Present Day Korean. In this paper, we claimed that the first step in the formation and grammaticalization of dtapsiko into a derogatory marker is evolution of an honorific marker dsAp and dAp into a stance marker. What is crucial in this functional development is the shift of the speaker's role from the observer to the experiencer or protagonist of events. We also discussed that the formation ofdtapsiko and the emergence of a pejorative sense are strongly influenced by the negative stance marking sense of dopsi. This paper claims that there are several cognitive factors involved in the grammaticalization of eopsi into a negative stance marker: the occurrence of the first person pronoun ‘I’ in the slot of the grammatical subject; subjectification and intersubjectification; a low-degrees of syntactic compatibility; and strategic use of disparagement. Lastly, we claim that the semantic of the particles dta and dko contribute in the grammaticalization of dtapsiko into a pejorative marker. Since the NF eko indicates isolation of event1 and event2 and the declarative ending dta marks the completion of an utterance or sentence, the speaker's interpretation of the relationship between the events linked by dta and eko may be ‘event A and (then) event B. Also, given that the complex dopsi conveys the sense of pejorative, it may be the case that an event or situation followed by the construction dtapsiko is likely to be construed as an undesirable single conceptual entity. As a result of the

K.-D. Ahn / Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 28e42

41

semantic contribution of the particles, the whole structure of dtapsiko expresses the proposition of ‘undesirable situation1 leads to undesirable situation2.’ References Ahn, K.-D., 2005. Semantic generality dilemma in grammaticalization: a case of cappacita. J. Ling. Sci. 32, 159e178. Ahn, Kyou-Dong, 2012. On the emergence of negative stance from the interplay of subjectivity and perfectivity. In: Paper Presented at Workshop on Stance Marking across Languages: Linguistic and Cultural Perspective. Hong Kong Polytech University, Hong Kong. May 7-9 2012. Ahn, Kyou-Dong, 2017. Constructions of viewpoint aspect and grammaticalization of negative conditionals in Korean. Concentric: Stud. Linguist. 43 (2), 63e86. Ahn, Sung-Ho, 2002. Honorification and AgrP. Handout, Linguistic Society of Korea. Seoul National University, Seoul.  Benveniste, Emile, 1971. Problems in General Linguistics [Meek, Mary Elizabeth, trans.]. University of Miami Press, Coral Gable. Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan, Finegan, Edward, 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Longman, London. Bolinger, Dwight, 1971. The nominal in the progressive. Linguist. Inq. 2, 246e250. Brown, Penelope, Levinson, Stephen, 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bybee, J., Perkins, R., Pagliuca, W., 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Cuyckens, H., Davidse, K., Vandelanotte, L. (Eds.), 2010. Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization. In: Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Dancygier, Barbara, Sweetser, Eve, 2005. Mental Spaces in Grammar: Conditional Constructions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Diewald, Gabriele, 2011. Grammaticalization and pragmaticalization. In: Narrog, Heiko, Heine, Bernd (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 450e461. Englebretson, Robert, 2007. Stancetaking in discourse: an introduction. In: Englebretson, Robert (Ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 1e16. Hasegawa, Nobuko, 2005. Honorifics. In: Everaert, Martin, Henk Van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, vol. 2. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 493e543. Heine, Bernd, 1997. Possession: cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Camb. Stud. Linguist. 83 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge). Hilpert, M., 2008. Germanic future constructions. A usage-based approach to language change. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Himmelmann, N., 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In: Bisang, W., Himmelmann, N., Wiemer, B. (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization: A look from its components and its fringes. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 21e42. Hopper, P., 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In: Traugott, E.C., Heine, B. (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, 1. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 17e35. Hopper, P., Traugott, E.C., 2003 [1993]. Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Huh, Woong, 1975. Wuliyeysmalpon. Saymwunwhasa, Seoul. Iwasaki, Shoichi, 1993. Subjectivity in Grammar and Discourse: Theoretical Considerations and a Case Study of Japanese Spoken Discourse. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Kim, Hyun Joo, 2005. Contaypep esAp- Ui Yeksacek Pyenwha (MA Thesis). Korea University, Seoul. Koo, H., 1987. Ssikkuth {-a, -key, -ci, -ko}uy ssuimkwa uymi [The usage and semantics of suffixes, -a, -key, -ci, and -ko]. Konkuk Emwunhak 11e12, 167e188. Koo, H., Rhee, S., 2016. Pejoratives in Korean. In: Finkbeiner, R., Meibauer, J., Wiese, H. (Eds.), Pejoration. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 301e323. Koopman, Hilda, 2005. Korean (and Japanese) morphology from a syntactic perspective. Linguist. Inq. 36, 601e633. Lakoff, George, Johnson, Mark, 1980. Metaphor We Live by. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Lee, Ki Dong, 1989. Ene cwukwansenguy mwuncey. Han-Geul 206, 165e196. Lee, Seung Wook, 1973. Kwukemwunpepcheykyeyuy Sacek Yenkwu. Ilcokak, Seoul. Lehmann, Christian, 2013. Review of: Narrog, Heiko & Heine, Bernd, the Oxford handbook on grammaticalization. Beitr. Gesch. Dtsch. Sprache Lit. 135 (3), 442e456. Nuyts, Jan, 2001. Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. J. Pragmat. 33, 383e400. Rhee, S., 1996. Semantics of Verbs and Grammaticalization: The Development in Korean from a CrossLinguistic Perspective, Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin. Hankook Publisher, Seoul. Rhee, Seongha, 2007. What is it for if it's before me?: subjectification and Grammaticalization of English for and before. Stud. Br. Am. Lang. Lit. 84, 209e231. Rhee, S., 2008. At the borderland of lexis and grammar: Grammaticalizing perfective markers in Korean. Discourse and Cognition 15 (3), 29e59. Rhee, Seongha, 2009. Through a borrowed mouth: reported speech and subjectification in Korean. LACUS Forum 34, 201e210. Rhee, Seongha, 2012. Context-induced reinterpretation and (inter)subjectification: the case of grammaticalization of sentence-final particles. Lang. Sci. 34, 284e300. Rhee, Seongha, 2016. From quoting to reporting to stance-marking: rhetorical strategies and intersubjectification of reportative. Lang. Sci. 34, 36e54. Seo, Jung Mok, 1988. Hankwuke chengca taywu tungkupuy hyengthayloncek haysek(1). Kwukehak 17, 97e151. Seo, Jung Mok, 1994. Kwuke Thongsa Kwuco Yenkwu: Kwucel Kwuco, Uymwunpep, Kyengepep. Sogang University Press, Seoul. Smith, Carlotta, 2002. Accounting for subjectivity (point of view). In: Nevin, Bruce E. (Ed.), The legacy of Zellig Harris. Language and Information into the 21st Century 1: Philosophy of Science, Syntax, and Semantics. Festschrift für Zellig Harris. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 137e163. Stein, Dieter, Wright, Susan (Eds.), 1995. Subjectivity and Subjectivisation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Stephan, Elena, Liberman, Nira, Trope, Yaacov, 2010. Politeness and psychological distance: a construal level perspective. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 98, 268e280. Suk, Ju Yeon, 2004. Seswuluy sicemkwa kwuke mwunpep hyensanguy ihay (Viewpoint and Korean grammar). J. Korean Ling. 43, 273e298. Suzuki, Satoko, 1998. Tte and nante: markers of psychological distance in Japanese conversation. J. Pragmat. 29, 429e462. Svorou, Soteria, 1993. The Grammar of Space. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Toribio, Jacqueline, 1990. Specifier-head agreement in Japanese. In: Halpern, Aaron (Ed.), Proceedings of WCCFL, vol. 9. CSLI, Stanford Linguistics Association, pp. 535e548. Traugott, Elizabeth C., 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In: Lehmann, Winfred, Malkiel, Yakov (Eds.), Perspectives in Historical Linguistic. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 245e271. Traugott, Elizabeth C., 1988. Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization. In: Axmaker, Shelley, Jaisser, Annie, Singmaster, Helen (Eds.), Berkeley Linguistics Society, vol. 14, pp. 406e416. Traugott, Elizabeth C., 1989. On the rise of epistemic meaning in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65, 31e55. Traugott, Elizabeth C., 2003. From subjectification to intersubjectification. In: Hickey, Raymond (Ed.), Motives for Language Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 124e142. Traugott, Elizabeth C., Dasher, Richard, 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. €nig, Ekkehard, 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In: Traugott, Elizabeth C., Heine, Bernd (Eds.), Traugott, Elizabeth C., Ko Approaches to Grammaticalization, vol. 1. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 189e218. Ura, Hiroyuki, 1993. L-relatedness and parametric variation. In: Phillips, Colin (Ed.), Papers on Case and Agreement I. (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics), vol. 18. Dept. of Linguistics, MIT, Cambridge, pp. 377e399.

42

K.-D. Ahn / Journal of Pragmatics 155 (2020) 28e42

Yang, Young Hee, 2000. Study on the Honorific of the Fifteenth Century Korean Language: Centering on Boolkyong Unhae (Ph.D. Dissertation). Chonnam University, Gwangju. Kyou-Dong Ahn e I am a lecturer in The Department of English Linguistics & Language Technology of Hankuk University of Foreign Studies in South Korea. I received the PhD degree from Hankuk University of Foreign Studies. My research is related to grammaticalization of English complex prepositions and the development of negative stance markers in the Korean language. Currently, I am working on the eurasia3angle project of the Max-Planck Institute in Jena, Germany. I published a monograph (From Space to Grammar, 2008), more than 10 journal publications and more than 30 conference papers.