Rhetorical questions as catalyst in grammaticalization: Deriving Korean discourse marker KETUN from conditional connective

Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 1023–1041

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Rhetorical questions as catalyst in grammaticalization: Deriving Korean discourse marker KETUN from conditional connective Alan Hyun-Oak Kim * Departments of Foreign Langs & Lits/Linguistics, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale IL 62901-4521/National Institute of Japanese and Linguistics, Tachikawa, Tokyo 190-8561, Japan

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history: Received 19 June 2008 Received in revised form 1 October 2010 Accepted 5 October 2010 Available online 3 December 2010

This paper is concerned with a lexical item ketun, which has two functions in Modern Korean: as a conditional connective and as a sentence-terminal discourse marker. The discourse marker is typically found when the speaker clarifies, makes excuses, apologizes, provides background information, mitigates illocutionary forces, or redresses facethreatening acts (FTAs) à la Brown and Levinson, 1987. Despite its apparent direct connection, the character of the functional shift of ketun from a conjunction to a discourse marker is not immediately clear. To date, there is no satisfactory analysis of the grammaticalization processes involved. The chief reason for this seems to lie in the technical difficulty in describing the discourse marker; ketun is represented in a wide range of functional variations. Because of such functional multiplicity, the discourse marker ketun is often described in a diffuse manner, as the ‘explicative’ ketun, the ‘apologetic’ ketun, the ‘redressive’ ketun, the ‘background-laying’ ketun, and the like. The purpose of the present thesis is to provide a principled account of the discourse marker ketun by characterizing it as the ‘authenticative’ marker. This approach allows the essential function of the authenticative discourse marker ketun to be captured and reveals how ketun serves as an effective discourse marker. This paper also shows that the sentence-terminal discourse marker is a direct descendant of the ketun antecedent associated with rhetorical questions, which plays an intriguing catalyst role in the grammaticalization process. ß 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Rhetorical question Catalyst Grammaticalization Discourse marker Conditional connective Authenticative marker Conditionality Hypotheticality Protasis Apodosis Factivity Quasi-factivity Stranded construct Performative function Subjectification Intersubjectification Implicature Speech act Evidential Retrospective past

1. Introduction Korean has two typical conditional connectives: -myen and -ketun, equivalent to if, when, provided that . . . in English.1 In comparison to the myen conditional, the ketun conditional is somewhat skewed in distribution: it occurs only in interactional environments such as imperative and hortative.2 Ketun, unlike its sister conditional myen, also appears at the sentenceterminal position uniquely functioning as a discourse marker.

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected]. 1 Sohn (1999:307) lists three items as subordinate conjunctive suffixes of conditional: -e.ya/a.ya ‘only if,’ -kentay ‘when, if,’ -taka-nun ‘if keep doing or being,’ besides -myen and -ketun. Martin (1992:329) gives a list of twelve Korean morphemes as the English equivalents if/when, which includes -umyen/-myen/-ketun. 2 Strictly speaking, the underlying form of the conditional connective myen should be -u-myen with the irrealis marker /u/. 0378-2166/$ – see front matter ß 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.001

A.H.-O. Kim / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 1023–1041

1024

The discourse marker ketun is generally believed to be derived from the conditional connective ketun. Park and Sohn (2002) reported in their study of Nokeltay (comparing four different versions) that the token number of the conditional connective ketun dropped from 83 to 38 in a roughly two-hundred-year period from 1517 through 1790.3 The present-day conditional connective is virtually overtaken by myen, mentioned above. The presumably erstwhile function of the conditional connective is no longer recognizable in the discourse marker ketun, and thus the derivative path from the connective ketun to the discourse lost its transparency. The sentence-terminal discourse marker ketun resists attempts at reconstructing the bi-clausal conditional sentence. Attempts to ‘restore’ a ketun-marked sentence into a bi-clausal conditional sentence seem to be doomed, failing to produce a well-formed sentence. Today’s grammaticalized ketun discourse marker establishes itself as an independent grammatical entity through loss of its original reading. This impaired protasis (without apodosis) but perfectly legitimate ketun-marked sentence is what we are concerned with in this paper. The ketun conditional has drawn many researchers’ attention. Early references to the ketun conditional construction are found in Ogura (1929/1974) and Yang (1945) in their studies of Shilla folk songs. More systematic, though largely taxonomic, studies of the ketun conditional are found in the works of Chwe (1971), Martin (1954, 1992), Im et al. (1987), Lee and Im (1983), So˘ (1988), Ko (1989), and more recently, Chang (1991), Lee (1998), Ahn (2000), and Chung (2007), among others.4 Sentences ending with the discourse marker ketun have drawn linguists’ attention from the cognitive-pragmatic perspective, as seen in Lee (1993), Park (1998), and Park and Sohn (2002). The present paper will focus on two such works: the research of Park (1998) and of Park and Sohn (2002). Though inspired and influenced by Park (1998) and by Park and Sohn (2002), the present study is a departure. It argues that the major contributing factors for the rise of the discourse marker ketun come chiefly from the morphological makeup of ketun itself. Three such factors are discussed: (i) the lexico-morphological properties (effective or affirmative, and actualization), (ii) the strong semantic inclination of allowing bi-conditional readings through invited inference (Geis and Zwisky, 1971), and (iii) the syntactic flexibility that facilitates dispensing of the consequent. These factors are pivotal for the ketun protasis to acquire a strong performative feature, which may be referred to as [QUASI-FACTIVE]. Via this acquired feature, the ketun protasis acquires an endorsing authority, while it loses its function of marking conditionality or hypotheticality. The functional loss of marking conditionality becomes more significant when the authenticative ketun co-occurs with rhetorical questions. Frequently, the speaker uses rhetorical questions combined with the authenticative ketun phrase in order to deliver strong advisements, recommendations, and persuasions to conversational partners. As is well known, a rhetorical question is not a new-information-seeking device; rather it is, in essence, a forceful speech act asserting what the speaker intends to convey to an interlocutor without expecting to be answered or challenged. The conditional connective ketun with a rhetorical question at the apodosis slot becomes the stranded ketun construct through the deletion of the rhetorical question itself. Ketun in the stranded construct is now used as a discourse marker serving the realm of speech act. The present paper is organized into seven sections. Following the introduction, section 2 introduces general properties of the ketun connective and contrasts it with the unmarked counterpart myen. Section 3 examines various aspects of the stranded ketun antecedent construct, contrasting it with the ordinary ketun conditional. Section 4 provides a critical review of two recent studies (Park, 1998; Park and Sohn, 2002). Section 5 is a departure introducing a hypothesis for the derivation of the stranded ketun discourse marker from the form of ketun-based rhetorical questions. Section 6 shows various data supporting the hypothesis including the lexico-morphological artifact (the effective marker/ke/and the complement head/ tu/with the contrastive marker/un/) of ketun, which is crucially relevant to the functional expansion of ketun as a discourse marker. This section elaborates the grammaticalization mechanism by which the ketun-based rhetorical question functions as a catalyst in establishing the authenticative ketun discourse marker. Section 6 summarizes the major points discussed and concludes the paper with some theoretical implications. 2. The general features of the ketun conditional marker This section examines the general characteristics of the conditional ketun connective to provide a foundation for the introduction of a hypothesis in section 5. 2.1. Conditional connectives in Korean The conditional connectives myen and ketun, both of which are equivalent to the English if, are suffixed to the stem of the protasis predicate, as shown in (1) below. (1)

[[ [If [

V] - myen/ketun]Protasis,

[

V]Apodosis

]]Protasis,

[

]Apodosis

3 Noko˘ltae ([TD$INLE] ) is a Middle Korean textbook edited by the Office of Translation of the Koryo Kingdom for teaching Chinese (and later Mongolian as well). The basic text is a simple travelers’story containing dialogues in the target language, such as Chinese or Mongolian. Three Korean ginseng merchants travel to Beijing and back to Korea. The text contains 106 conversation scenes between the Koreans and Mr. Wang, a Chinese merchant, whom they meet before crossing the border and travel with to the Chinese capital. There are several other versions, and Park and Sohn (2002:308) list four such versions of the textbooks (1597, 1670, 1765, and 1790) they investigated. 4 Ketun is frequently translated as ‘when’ or ‘as’ rather than ‘if,’ unlike myen, which reflects somewhat adequately the semantic-pragmatic differences between ketun and myen. Chwe (1929/1971) identified four kinds of ketun usage scattered in different chapters: explanation, advice, instruction, rhetorical questions, and mild exclamation.

A.H.-O. Kim / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 1023–1041

1025

The predicates of the protasis and the apodosis appear in the clause-final position, reflecting the properties of Korean as a harmonious head-final language. The connectives myen and ketun are not much different from each other in terms of their basic function, seen in (2) and (3). The connectives myen and ketun are interchangeable in sentences like (2).5 (2)

a.

[Yel-i

na-myen]antecedent,

[i yak-ul

tu-sey-yo]consequent

fever-NOM

occur-if

this drug-ACC

take SH-IMP-POL

‘If you have fever, take this medicine.’ b.

[Yel-i

na-ketun]antecedent,

[i yak-ul

tu-sey-yo]consequent

fever-NOM

have-if

this drug-ACC

take-SH-IMP-POL

‘If you have fever, take this medicine.’ (3)

Selini-ka o-myen/ketun, wuli cemsim kathi ha-psi-ta Selini-NOM come-if

we lunch

together do-POL-SE

‘When/as Selini comes, let’s have lunch together.’ However, as we will see in the next section, critical differences emerge. 2.2. Semantic-pragmatic differences: myen and ketun Ketun shows differences from its sister connective myen on several points, as shown below. First, ketun shows a difference from myen in its distribution pattern. (4)

Pom-i

o-myen/*ketun,

kkoch-i

phi-n-ta.

spring-NOM

come-MYEN/KETUN

flowers-NOM

bloom

‘When spring comes, flowers bloom.’ (5)

Florida-cwu-eyse

Konghwa-tang-i

ci-myen/*ketun,

Mincwu-tang-i

Florida-state-in

GOP-NOM

lose-MYEN/KETUN

Democrats-NOM

sungli-ha-l kke-ta. win

will

‘If GOP loses in Florida, Democrats will win (the November Election.)’ (6)

Taxi-lul cap-ci anh-u-myen/*ketun, ceyttay-ey tah-ci mos hal-kke-ya. taxi-ACC take-not-MYEN/KETUN

time-on reach-unable-do-will

‘If (we) don’t take a taxi, (we) won’t be able to get (there) on time.’ (7)

Talmuli-ka ci-myen/*ketun,

taum-nal pi-ka o-n-ta-n-ta.

halo-NOM occur-MYEN/KETUN next-day rain come-they-say ‘If the moon has a halo, they say it will rain the following day.’ As evident in examples (4)–(7), ketun and sentences of the declarative mood are not compatible. Instead, ketun occurs exclusively in sentences of command (8a), promise (8b), resolution (8c), and the like. (8)

a.

Sam-i

o-ketun,

kathi ttena-ke-la. [Command]

Sam-NOM

come-KETUN

together leave-EFF-IMP

‘As Sam comes, leave with him.’ (no departure before Sam’s arrival)

5

Abbreviations adopted in this paper are as follows:

ACC = accusative GEN = genitive LOC = locative POL = polite SE = sentence-ending VOL = volitional

COMP = complementizer IMP = imperative NOM = nominative POL = polite SH = subject honorific

EFF = effective INTENT = intentive PAST = past PRESM = presumptive Q = question

A.H.-O. Kim / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 1023–1041

1026

b.

I chayk nay-ka ta ilk-ketun, pillye-cwul-kkey. [Promise] this book I-NOM all read-KETUN loan-give-VOL ‘When I finish this book, I’ll loan it to you.’ (no lending before my reading)

c.

Yohan-i

18-sal-i twey-ketun, cha-lul

Yohan-NOM 18 become-KETUN

sa-cwu-eyaci. [Monologue-Resolution]

car-ACC buy-give-INTENT

‘When Yohan becomes 18, I’ll buy him a car. (no gift before his coming of age) The type of sentences in which ketun occurs are largely interactional, as many linguists note. The speaker’s expression of resolution may be viewed as an act of imposing a command on himself. Likewise, a promise is the speaker’s public proclamation of imposing an obligation on himself for achieving something. The hortative mood belongs to this group, where the command is imposed on a group of people via the feature of the first person plural. In short, ketun is interactional, in contrast to the unmarked myen connective, as Park (1998) and as Park and Sohn (2002) correctly point out. The second difference in the myen/ketun pair is found in the degree of hypotheticality. The following pair of Lee’s (1993) examples illustrates this property. (9)

a.

Pay-ka aphu-myen

tasi o-sey-yo.

stomach-NOM sick-MYEN again come-HON-POL ‘If you are sick again, come back.’ (ibid: 466) b.

Pay-ka aphu-ketun,

tasi osey-yo.

stomach-NOM sick-KETUN again come-HON-POL ‘When you are sick again, come back.’ (ibid: 466) The speaker in (9b), presumably, a doctor, anticipates some possibility of a side-effect of the medicine prescribed for the patient (the addressee). For instance, the doctor’s anticipation may be based on the prescriptive warning from the pharmaceutical manufacturer. Such a reading is less likely in the (9a) context. The following examples are also from the same source. (10)

a.

Ku sangcem-i tat-hye-ss-u-myen, ku-nyang tolao-ne-la.6 the store-NOM closed-MYEN

just

return-IMP

‘If the store is closed, just come back.’ b.

Ku sangcem-i tat-hye-ss-ketun, ku-nyang tolao-ne-la. the store-NOM closed-MYEN

just

return-IMP

‘When the store is closed, just come back.’ In the ketun-conditional (10b), the speaker has some precursory doubt about the store’s doing business at that late hour, while in the myen-conditional there may be no information about the store’s business hours. In short, the ketun conditional is less hypothetical than its myen counterpart. In fact, in English translation of ketun, ‘as’ is much preferred to ‘if.’ The third critical difference between myen and ketun is that the latter frequently occurs in rhetorical questions, as in (11)– (13), which are borrowed from Martin et al. (1967:81). (11)

Ney-ka kulehkey kongpu-hay-ya ha-ketun, nay- ya? you-NOM so-much study-must-KETUN

I-

when-it-comes-to

‘If you must work so hard, how much more must I?’ (12)

Nay ani ic-ess-ketun, I

ney-n-tul selma ic-ess-keyss-nun-ya?

not forget-PAST-KETUN you-granted hardly forget-PAST-PRSM-Q

‘Since I haven’t forgotten it, how could you?’ (13)

Ecey-s pam-ey pi-ka

wass-ketun, mul-i

ilehkey

yesterday-night-at rain-NOM came-KETUN water-NOM this much put-ci-

anh-

keyss-so?

rise-COMP-not-do PRSM-POL ‘‘Isn’t it natural that the river has risen like this since it rained last night?’’

6

The vowel -u is inserted between the verb stem and the conditional connective myen in case the stem ends in a vowel.

A.H.-O. Kim / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 1023–1041

1027

Rhetorical questions are also used to express the speaker’s strong opinions in pompous remarks, such as those shown in (14) and (15) below from Pyojun Kuko˘ Taesajo˘n (1999:232). (14)

kkamakwi-to emi-uy unhyey-lul al-ketun, crow-even mother-GEN benevolence-ACC know-KETUN hamulmye salam-i

pumo-uy

unhyey-lul

molu-kyess-nunya?

much more man-NOM parents-GEN benevolence-ACC know-not-PRSM-Q ‘If crows know their mother’s love, how much more should men acknowledge their parents’ love?’ By (14), the speaker asserts that ‘‘men should acknowledge their parents’ love,’’ by making use of a conversational implicature that the ability for humans to appreciate their parents’ love is higher in scale than for nonhumans. (15)

Mal-ul paywu-ca

Chencamun-ul

wewu-ess-ketun,

speech-ACC acquire-upon 1000 idogram book-ACC memorize-KETUN cangpu-ka twey-ese,

saseokyeng-ul

molu-lya?

adult-NOM become-and 4 Books/5Classics-ACC not-know-Q ‘If I memorized the Thousand Character Book even when I could barely speak my mother tongue, how should I not be able to read the Four Books and the Five Classics?’ The classical curriculum for traditional Korean Confucian literati education consists of the study of the Chinese classics including the Four Books and Five Classics. Students must memorize all Chinese characters appearing in The Thousand Character Book before advancing to books such as those referred to in the example. In (15), then, the speaker asserts his scholarship of the Chinese Classics by mentioning, as evidence of that claim, his exceptional memorization of the basic characters when he was a toddler. In summary, (i) ketun is essentially biconditional via conditional perfection; (ii) ketun is interactional, occurring exclusively in the command mood; and (iii) ketun is frequently involved in rhetorical questions. The next section shows that the ketun antecedent becomes self-contained through grammaticalization to function as an independent discourse marker without being followed by the apodosis clause. The independent stranded ketun-construct exhibits distinct pragmatic functions in discourse. 3. The discourse marker ketun and the ketun protasis construction 3.1. Grammatical peculiarities in the construct with discourse marker ketun The stranded ketun antecedent construct, which is regarded as an independent grammatical form, may be presented as follows. (16)

The stranded ketun antecedent template: [ α ]Proposition -ketun where α is an arbitrary proposition that the speaker contends or maintains in an utterance.

The sentence-terminal discourse marker ketun displays significant differences from the unmarked antecedent conditional ketun. First, the stranded ketun construct no longer functions as a regular conditional. It does not seem to allow the apodosis to be ‘reinstated,’ so to speak. It is also commonly followed by additional discourse markers — such as -ya, its polite form -(e)yo, -ney, and the like — at the sentence-terminal position. (17)

Ce cip-ey I

tochakhay-ss-ketun-yo. uh

house-LOC arrive-PAST-KETUN-POL

‘I’m home, uh.’ (Park and Sohn, 2002:869) (18)

(a) Na kiek-i an-na-ney.

(b) Na ku ttay cheum kan ke-

I memory not come-I wonder

I then the first time go-ATTR thing KETUN-POL

ketun-yo

‘I don’t remember. It was my first time to go there.’ (Park and Sohn, 2002: 864) In (19) below, the speaker challenges the interlocutor’s hunch that a person in question might have been at the church earlier. The speaker refutes by saying that having just come back from the church, there is no chance at having missed seeing the person in question there. (19)

Oa-ss-ketun-yo.

Kumpang.

come-PST-KETUN-POL just now ‘I just came back from church. Just now.’ (ibid:866)

1028

A.H.-O. Kim / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 1023–1041

By examining statements like (19), it appears virtually impossible for one to complete a bi-clausal conditional sentence by adding a consequent. This state of affairs presents a problem in identifying grammatical paths in the development of the ketun discourse marker. This issue will be addressed after examination of the characteristics of the stranded ketun construct. 3.2. Syntactic peculiarities of the stranded ketun construct It is noteworthy that in a normal ketun conditional sentence, the first-person subject in the past-tense ketun antecedent is incompatible with, as shown in (20) below, situations where the speaker is too busy to listen to the addressee’s story. (20)

a.

Nay-ka hwu-ey

tasi o-ketun,

yayki-hay.ta-o

I-NOM later again come-KETUN

tell-give.me-IMP

‘Tell me about the story, when you find me back again later.’ b.

??Nay-ka hwu-ey tasi o.a-ss-ketun,

yayki-hay.ta-o

I-NOM later again come-KETUN

tell-give.me-IMP

‘??Tell me about the story, when you find me having been back again later.’ (20b) is absurd semantically, since it is physically impossible for the speaker (A) to tell the story to another person (B) when B has already left by the time A is ready to tell the story. On the contrary, the ketun-marked sentence (19) in the past tense is perfectly acceptable. Likewise, (21) below is an apparent contradiction. (21)

a.

Nay-ka ka-ketun, Yuna-lul I-NOM

manna-key

hay ta-o.

go-KETUN Yuna-ACC meet-arrange giveme-IMP

‘When I am there, make an arrangement for me to meet Yuna.’ b.

*Nay-ka ka-ss-

ketun, Yuna-lul

manna-key hay ta-o.

I-NOM go-PAST-KETUN Yuna-ACC meet-arrange-giveme-IMP ‘*?If I had been there, send me an e-mail’ c.

Nay-ka ka-ss-

ketun.

I-NOM go-PAST-KETUN ‘Indeed, I went there.’ In (21a), the speaker (A) asks one of his friends in Seoul (B) to make an arrangement so that A can meet Yuna. However, this reading cannot be obtained from example (21b), because of the apparent contradiction in that A had been in Seoul but is unavailable by the time that B is ready to introduce A to Yuna. In the context of (21c), the speaker proudly reports to his friend back in the States that he has been to Seoul and had a meeting with the renowned young figure skater. The protasis nay-ka ka-ss-ketun in (21b) and (21c) are identical in the past tense, and yet only the latter is grammatical. Examination of various functions of the ketun discourse marker will help resolve the issue of what makes (21c) well formed, while (21b) fails. 3.3. Performative functions of the stranded ketun construct From previous studies, such as those of Park (1998) and Park and Sohn (2002), and some dictionary sources, we learned that the stranded ketun has diverse applications: (i) explaining/clarifying certain topics, (ii) providing background information, (iii) apologizing for certain misconduct/mishaps/faux pas, etc.; (iv) mitigating circumstances in making requests; (v) redressing face-threatening acts; (vi) preceding triggering sequence-expansion; (vii) making pompous recommendations or giving pompous advice. The following exemplify such functions in discourse. (22)

Explaining cam-ul

mos ca-ss-

ketun- yo. [Park, 1998:861]

sleep-ACC NEG sleep-PAST-KETUN-POL ‘I didn’t sleep that much.’ Example (22) is a response to an addressee’s earlier remark ‘You look sleepy.’ (23)

Clarifying welyoil-i

ketun-yo. [Park and Sohn, 2002:307]

Monday-be KETUN-POL ‘(You see) May 30th is Memorial Day and it falls on Monday. So it is a long weekend, and . . .’

A.H.-O. Kim / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 1023–1041

1029

The speaker tries to clarify what happened on May 30th by telling the addressee that the day happened to be in the midst of the long Memorial Day weekend. (24)

Backgrounding Sengkyeng sihem-ul po-ketun-yo. Bible

maycwu. [Park and Sohn, 2002:311]

test-ACC take-KETUN-POL every week

‘That is, we take every week the Bible exam.’ The speaker of (24) tells the addressee, who is not familiar with the church activities, about a Bible class at the speaker’s church. The information above gives background for the speaker’s story about a classmate with an incredible photographic memory who gets perfect scores on every test they take. (25)

Mitigating illiocutionary force ani eps-ketun-yo.

[Park and Sohn, 2002:314]

no not have-KETUN-POL ‘No, I don’t have it-ketun.’ (26)

Precursor for upcoming discourse expansion Onul chayyuk sikan-ey ssilum-ul paywe-ss-ketun. Kulentey, swuep-i kkuthnako today PE class-at wresting-ACC learned-KETUN and class-NOM over-and aitul- kkili swi-nun sikan-ey ssilum-phan-ul pellitaka han ai-ka tache-ss-e. kids-themselves break-time-in wresting game-ACC started a kid was injured [Pyojun Kuko˘ Daesajo˘n, 1999:232] ‘At today’s PE class we learned wrestling. And, you know what? During the break after class, kids wrestled one another and one of us got hurt . . .’

(27)

Making a pompous remark or giving pompous advice using unchallengeable rhetorical questions Nongsa-lan ttang-ul cal talueyaman farming-TOP soil-ACC well treat-must manhun sochul-ul nay-l-swu-ka iss-ketun. [Pyojun Kuko˘ Taesajo˘n, 1999:232] plenty return-ACC produce-ability-NOM exist-KETUN ‘Speaking of farming, one must treat soil gently to produce good harvests.’

The speaker of (27), who appears to be a senior with rich experience in farming, is giving epigram-like advice to a young farmer.7 4. Previous analyses of ketun-grammaticalization paths Despite the apparently obvious relationship between ketun as the conditional connective and ketun as the discourse marker, the explanation of how the latter developed from the former is not as straightforward as it appears. The following section discusses three analyses proposed in the literature. 4.1. Subjectification and grammaticalization path Three arguments regarding the development of the ketun discourse marker are examined in this section. They are arguments proposed by Park (1998), Koo (1999), and Park and Sohn (2002). Park (1998) gives a brief suggestion that ketun has undergone a grammaticalization process from a conditional marker to a reason-providing connective and further to a sentence-final particle that marks the speaker’s stance regarding information status with various interactional functions. She also adds that ‘‘the grammaticalization process can be further supported by its phonological changes such as keteng or kellang as found in casual or sometimes vulgar Korean’’ (ibid: 870). While these remarks provide some information about ketun’s functional changes, there is no indication of how such a shift took place with a particular function but not with another or what mechanism drives the ketun antecedent to become a self-sustaining discourse marker with the absence of the consequent clause. The grammaticalization process involved in the categorical shift of ketun is substantially elaborated in Park and Sohn (2002). First, the authors note a high boundary tone H% with the discourse marker ketun at sequence boundaries. Arguing that the ketun discourse marker triggers sequence expansion, the authors propose a three-stage path characteristically corresponding to the course of subjectification and intersubjectification. 28 below illustrates how such a path might develop. 7

See Van der Auwera’s (1986) in-depth exposition of speech acts of conditionals.

1030

(28)

A.H.-O. Kim / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 1023–1041

Grammaticalization Path of- ketun (Park and Sohn, 2002:318) Stage I:

CONDITIONAL (Connective)

Stage II:

CONCESSIVE (Optional)

State III:

JUSTIFICATIVE (Sentence-ender)

Sentence-bound conditional meaning if Speaker-oriented concessive even if (Subjectification) Speaker’s justification for the current utterance (Intersubjectification) In their analysis, the authors adopt two theoretical models: (inter-)subjectification (Traugott and Dasher, 2001) and a model of conditional if to concessive even if (Hopper and Traugott, 1993:180; Ko¨nig, 1986, 1991). The inclusion of Stage II (the stage of concessive conditional) is particularly noteworthy. Supporting evidence for the concessive stage is demonstrated with the Middle Korean data below. (29)

Amuna

han mal-ul

mul-etun

sto taytapti mos hA-myen

anyone one word-ACC ask-KETUN also answer not do-if talAn salam-i

wuli-lul musum salAm-ul

other people-NOM we-ACC

what

poli-o.

person-ACC see-Q

‘If we were unable to answer even one word anyone asks, what would they think of us?’’ [Park and Sohn, 2002:308] Examples such as this are in fact not rare in Middle Korean. For instance, Nam (1997:48) shows the concessive usage of ketun with two examples, one of which is quoted below. (30)

Pulca-i inyoklyek-ey cwuh^ya cungsangmanh^lh sal^m-i kucicu-mye Buddhist-NOM perseverance-in live-and arrogant person-NOM blame-and ti-ketun

ta ch^ma pulto kwuh^non yang-to po-mye beat-KETUN all persevere Buddhist way pursue-case-too saw-and ‘One witnessed a scene in which, even when an insolent blamed and hit him, the Buddhist monk showed of fortitude by overcoming insults of all kinds, . . .’ [So˘kpo 13:22] Like (29), example (30) of the ketun-conditional exhibits an even reading, ‘even when.’ Park and Sohn suggest that Stage II is a case of subjectification and ‘‘[a]t stage II, it (ketun) acquires a speaker-oriented concessive meaning even if,’’ and further that ‘‘[t]he concessive meaning is viewed as a later development of conditional (ct. Hopper and Traugott, 1993:180).’’ The authors characterize the rise of the ketun discourse marker as an instance of intersubjectification (Traugott and Dasher, 2001). We have three observations from this analysis. First, there seem to be signs of intersubjectification in an earlier stage than the authors note. As the Nokeltay data show, the ketun protasis appears quite early in the rhetorical question mood, which represents a full-blown intersubjective discourse instance. Second, a question like the following must be answered: Semantically, how does a concessive associated with the free-choice feature change to a justicative marker with the feature of assertion? (Note that the notions of free choice and assertion are mutually exclusive.) In this conjunction, the authors cautiously add that the second concessive stage is optional. However, again this raises the question of how the conditional ketun can bypass the concessive state and devolve directly into the discourse marker. Third, this leaves the question of the actual mechanism of subjectification and intersubjectification: Do they have genuine generative capacity actually turning the concessive ketun (the conditional ketun for that matter) to a discourse-oriented marker? We will address this question later in this section. Koo (1999) provides another attempt to grapple with this question. As do Park and Sohn (2002), Koo also tabulates tokens of occurrence of various connectives in the Nokeltay texts. Koo’s diachronic analysis may be reduced to three points: (i) there were a series of connectives — such as myen, keni, ketun, eto, uni, eynen, and nun — operating as temporal markers in Old Korean; (ii) of them, ketun and myen evolved into markers of conditionality via the expansion of the semantic feature of simultaneity (Koo, 1999:551); and (iii) while myen has become the unmarked conditional connective, ‘‘the functionally relegated ketun acquires new discourse functions . . . signaling various semantics according to the speaker’s discourse strategy’’ (Koo, 1999:553). Related to the ketun grammaticalization, she too attributes subjectification — ‘‘external/objective meanings changed into internal/subjective meanings, or from real world interpretation to discourse context interpretation (Traugott, 1989 and elsewhere; Traugott and Ko¨nig, 1991; Rhee, 2004)’’ [Koo, 1999:552]. As in the previous contributions, her discussion describes subjectification without explaining what subjectification actually does in the grammaticalization of ketun. No doubt, the notions of subjectification and intersubjectification help us better understand the nature of changes in grammaticalization, which are remarkably universal in the unidirectional course. However, they do not necessarily seem to specify a particular mechanism that is involved with driving, or instigating, the transformation of one grammatical form into another. Subjectification may well be a powerful typological notion but may not necessarily facilitated generative force.

A.H.-O. Kim / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 1023–1041

1031

The next section attempts to identify the conditions that trigger the dynamics that transforms ketun into an effective discourse marker. 5. Rhetorical questions in ketun-grammaticalization An alternative to the previously discussed analyses, this paper presents as its thesis that the sentence-terminal ketun discourse marker is derived from the erstwhile conditional connective ketun through an intermediate catalyst stage. Four arguments support this hypothesis. First, a rhetorical question (RQ hereafter) is the only sentence form that allows the discourse marker ketun (DM-ketun hereafter) to be restored as an erstwhile status of conditional or concessive connective ketun (CM-ketun). 8 That is, by adding an RQ but not other sentence forms, one can produce a grammatically wellformed bi-clausal sentence, which is schematically represented in (31) below. (31)

[ [p-ketun], [RQ] ] Implicature: If p is truthful, how can anyone doubt the truthfulness of q? (where: q is the proposition of RQ. p and q are members of a scalar set where the scale order p > q holds.)

Generally, the contents of the proposition in the ketun-protasis clause are authoritative recommendations, upper-handed advice, epigrams, bons mots, and the like, which are conventionally challenge proof. Second, in an environment such as (31), RQ co-occurs with an adverb like hamulmye (‘not even to mention’). This implicature affects the raison d’eˆtre of the physical presentation of RQ and eventually leads to dispensing with the apodosis, the consequence of which gives the rise of ketun as a discourse marker. Third, the ketun-based RQ provides a syntactic structure that allows optional concessive readings, such as in the RQ sentence If you should help your neighbors, how much more should you help your parents? The implication of this example is that you help even your neighbors, how could you not help your own parents? In contrast, to obtain a concessive reading from an imperative sentence with the ketun-protasis is not as easy without the RQ, as shown in an ill-formed sentence like *If/when you should help your neighbors, help your parents! The hypothesis of the ketun-RQ stage in the grammaticalization path provides a reasonable explanation of how a sentence like (2) above allows a concessive reading. Furthermore, the optional path of the concessive stage in grammaticalization commented on by Park and Sohn (2002:318) may also be supported because concessive readings in ketun-based RQs can optionally be obtained according to the given context. Fourth, and finally, morphologically, ketun can be dissected into two or three components, and the meaning of each element may be reduced to a single semantic feature [FACTIVITY] or [QUASI-FACTIVITY]. This specific feature qualifies ketun to function as a sort of authentication-granting source and ‘‘to endorse’’ the validity of the speaker’s statements in the apodosis. In short, the semantic feature inherent in the morphological composite ketun is the driving force facilitating the CM-ketun to function as an effective instrument of speech acts in discourse. In the following section, an experimental format is devised to demonstrate the rationale of the RQ-catalyt hypothesis. 5.1. Working hypothesis It is hypothesized in this paper that the stranded ketun construct phrase may have evolved from the conditional ketun via an intermediate stage in which the ketun protasis served as part of a rhetorical question. The construct eventually developed into an ‘authenticative’ discourse marker through a pragmatic sparing of the RQ, as schematically shown in (32) below. (32)

Grammaticalization Path of ketun in Korean A. B.

Conditional: Conditional:

[ketun-protasis,

apodosis

[+FACTIVE][+HYPOTH]

#

[ketun-protasis,

apodosis

] ]

increasingly C. D.

Conditional RQ: Discourse Marker:

[+FACTIVE][-HYPOTH]

#

[ketun-protasis,

rhetorical question

gaining [+AUTHENT]

#

[

Ø

] ketun[H%]

]

[+AUTHENT] The core of this analysis is that DM-ketun is a direct descendant of the RQ with CM-ketun through the ellipsis of the RQ apodosis. In this view, RQ is not simply another variant of the ketun conditional, but rather it is a diachronic derivative of the unmarked ketun conditional along with the gradual addition of the [AUTHENTICATIVE] feature on the basis of the [factivity] feature inherent to ketun. Once the B stage ketun has gained an increasing degree of [+FACTIVITY] or [QUASI-FACTIVITY] i.e. 8 Rhee (2004) discusses interesting (inter)subjectification processes in grammaticalization with ‘‘rhetorical questions’’ in Korean. The notion of rhetorical questions in the study, however, is loosely used to label ‘‘all strategic uses of questions that are different from conventional ones in that they do not require answers’’ such as tag questions, pause-fillers, mitigating discourse endings of different sorts. Though insightful in its own right, Rhee’s study has little theoretical relevance to the present exploration.

A.H.-O. Kim / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 1023–1041

1032

the virtual loss of the [+HYPOTHETICALITY] feature (Comrie, 1986:88) thanks to its morphologically enriched composite, the ketun protasis qualifies itself for taking the RQ-sentence mode. As it is grammaticalized as the source of authentication, the ketun antecedent itself behaves as a source or an agent of the authentication to endorse the speaker’s statements. As a consequence, it becomes a full-blown authenticative or justificative marker without recourse to RQ in the apodosis. Taking this assumption, in the next section we will first examine some of the ketun conditionals already discussed in the previous sections — particularly those with rhetorical questions in protasis. Then, we will apply RQ supplementation to the stranded ketun constructs to test our working hypothesis. 5.2. Rhetorical questions as a catalyst in grammaticalization The rhetorical question is an emphatic assurance of the speaker’s statement in that, when the ketun protasis is well established (generalized conversational implicature), it is not easy to dispute the apodosis as being false. The rhetorical paradigm may be regarded as one of the strongest biconditional assertions among other usages of the ketun conditional. In this format, the antecedent becomes the least hypothetical (most assertive), by which the speaker authenticates her command, demand, request, explanation, excuses, and so forth. 9 As we see above, RQs are frequently accompanied by the adverb hamulye ([]NELID$T ‘how much more’), equivalent to an expression like ‘there is no need even to mention.’ In fact, it is generally characterized that rhetorical questions do not allow answers, because the presupposition of the question is preemptively established and, presumably, allows presumably no challenge (Comrie, 1984:39; Herring, 1991:260).10 The property of RQs being unchallengeable speech acts is feasible only with the powerful backup of the proposition expressed in the ketun protasis. In other words, the authentication or endorsement by the ketun protasis makes rhetorical questions operate as a powerful speech-act tool. Now, the conditional connective ketun acts as a marker of authentication. At this point of the transitional process, a proposition supported by the authenticative ketun enables it to operate as a device for various speech acts — such as reasoning, requesting, apologizing, and the like — independently, without being accompanied by an RQ in the apodosis clause. Before our RQ-restoration experiment, let us first appreciate what actual RQ sentences with conditional protasis look like. We already have five such examples in our previous discussion. They are quoted below, and each is supplemented with possible implicature appropriate to the context. (33)

(=11) Ney-ka kulehkey kongpu-hay-ya ha-ketun, nay- ya? you-NOM so-much study-must-KETUN

I-

when-it-comes-to

‘If you must work so hard, then how much more must I work?’ Implicature: I need to work more than you do, because you work so hard and you know you are smarter than I am. In (33) above, the speaker acknowledges the necessity of studying harder under the circumstance in which even the brightest one in class (say, John) is studying hard. Suppose John asks the speaker of (33), ‘‘Why do you study so hard?’’ The rephrased speaker would most likely answer with a sentence something like ‘‘Because even you are studying that hard (how could I not study at least this much?).’’ The underscored portion corresponds precisely to the apodosis-less construct — Ney-ka kulehkey kongpu-hay-ya ha-ketun, which behaves as a discourse statement now independent from the erstwhile RQ sentence (33). (34)

(=12) Nay ani ic-ess-ketun,

ney-n-tul sulma ic-ess-keyss-nun-ya?

I not forget-PAST-KETUN you-granted hardly forget-PAST-PRSM-Q ‘Since I haven’t forgotten it, how could you?’ Implicature: You must not forget it, because I have not forgotten it. I am not the one who was directly involved in the matter that you did. (35)

(=13) Ecey-s pam-ey pi-ka

wass-ketun, mul-i

ilehkey

yesterday-night-at rain-NOM came-KETUN water-NOM this much put-ci-

anh-

keyss-so?

rise-COMP-not-do PRSM-POL ‘‘Isn’t it natural that the river has risen like this since it rained last night?!’’ Implicature: When there’s a big rain storm, how could it be possible for the river not to rise. The river raises that much, because we had a big rain storm last night. 9

Note that the notion of hypotheticality here is different, perhaps even diametrically so, from that conceived by Koo (1999:552). In discussing Tamil storytelling data, Herring (1991) classifies rhetorical questions into three types: Classical RQ, Thematizing RQ, and Rhetorical Tags. The ketun RQ here may be regarded as an instance of the rhetorical tags category. 10

A.H.-O. Kim / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 1023–1041

(36)

1033

(=14) Kkamakwi-to emi-uy unhyey-lul

al-ketun, crow-even mother-GEN benevolence-ACC know-KETUN

hamulmye salam-i

unhyey-lul

pumo-uy

molu-kyess-nunya?

much more man-NOM parents-GEN benevolence-ACC know-not-PRSM-Q (a)

‘If crows know their mother’s love, how much more should men acknowledge their parents’ love?’

(b)

‘Even crows know their mother’s love, how could not men acknowledge their parents’ love?’ Implicature of (a) and (b): Everyone should appreciate their mother’s love, because even animals like crows demonstrate that behavior.

(37)

(=15) Mal-ul paywu-ca

Chencamun-ul

wewu-ess-ketun,

speech-ACC acquire-upon 1000 idogram book-ACC memorize-KETUN cangpu-ka twey-ese,

sasesamkyeng-ul

molu-lya?

adult-NOM become-and 4 Books/5Classics-ACC not-know-Q (a)

‘If I memorized the Thousand Character Book when I could barely speak my mother tongue, how much more should I know besides the Four Books and the Five Classics?’

(b)

‘Even I memorized the Book of Thousand Characters when I could barely speak my mother tongue, how could I not have read the Four Books and the Five Classics?’ Implicature: If I learned how to read all characters in the Book of Thousand Characters when I was a toddler, then I would of course have been able to read and understand Four Books and Five Classics at this age. I understand Four Books and Five Classics with no problem, because I was smart enough to understand The Book of Thousand Characters even when I was a toddler. How couldn’t I?

By making use of the existing examples, it has shown that a congruent implicature was constructible for each of the given contexts. With this experiment, we learn that the speakers present their points to their hearer in an imposing manner. We also observed that ketun-protasis still holds, even if its RQ-apodosis was dispensed. If the stranded ketun construct is indeed derived from conditional sentences with RQ apodosis like (33)–(38), then we could reasonably expect those examples of the stranded ketun construct we have discussed in this section will also accommodate ‘‘RQ restoration’’ so as to produce meaningful well-formed sentences. In this expectation, we will apply RQrestoration to examples in sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3. Each of the RQ examples below consists of three parts: (a) the original stranded ketun-construct that we examined in the previous sections; (b) the approximated supplementary congruent rhetorical question, given the context; and (c) the conversational implicature that holds the relationship between DM-ketun and RQ well formed syntactically as well as semantically. (38)

(=22) a.

cam-ul mos

ca-ss-

ketun-

yo.

‘I didn’t sleep that much -KETUN’ b.

RQ: Ecci colli-e poi-ci-an-keyss-eyo.

c.

Implicature: If you stay up all night, you will naturally be sleepy. No wonder I look sleepy because I was up all night.

‘How could I not be sleepy?’

(39)

(=23) a.

Owel samsipil-i Memorial Day-intey welyoil-i ketun-yo. ‘(You see) May 30th is Memorial Day and it falls on Monday.’

b.

RQ:

Ecci salam-i an manh-keyss-eyo ‘How could there not be a lot of people?’

c. (40)

Implicature: Since it was Memorial Day Monday, it is natural that there were a lot of people there. There were a lot of people, because it was Memorial Day Monday.

(=25) a.

ani eps-ketun-yo.

b.

RQ:

‘No, I don’t have it-ketun.’ Ecci cikum tuli-l swu-ka iss-keyss-eyo. ‘How could I give it to you now?’ c.

Implicature: Since I do not have it now (I must have misplaced it somewhere), it is natural that I cannot give it to you. But, as soon as I find it, I’ll give it to you. I cannot give it to you now, because I misplaced it somewhere.

A.H.-O. Kim / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 1023–1041

1034

(41)

(=27) a.

Nongsa-lan ttang-ul cal talueyaman manhun sochul-ul nay-l-swu-ka iss-ketun ‘Speaking of farming, one must treat soil gently to produce good harvests’

b.

RQ:

Ecci ttang-ul cal an talwu-l-swu-ka iss-u-lya. ‘How could one not treat the soil gently as to produce good havests?’

c. (42)

Implicature: When one treats the soil gently then one will have good harvests. There is no question that one will treat the soil gently so as to have good harvests. You must treat the soil gently because that leads to good results.

(=18) a.

Na ku ttay cheum kan ke-ketun-yo. ‘I have never been there before.’

b.

RQ:

Ecci nay-ka ku salam-ul kiekha-keyss-eyo ‘How could I remember a person at that place then?’

c. (43)

Implicature: If you’ve never been there, you couldn’t meet someone there.

(=19) a.

O-a-ss-ketun-yo.

Kumpang.

‘I’ve just come home (from the church).’ b.

RQ:

Ecci nay-ka Yengcjin Senpay an po-a-ss-keyss-eyo? ‘How could I miss Yengjin at the church, if she was there?’

c.

Implicature: Since I’ve just come home from the church, it is impossible for me to have missed seeing her there despite your thinking she might have been there. I don’t think she was in the church, because I’ve just come back from there, and I think I would have seen her if she were there.

All the examples above seem to accommodate the reconstructed RQ satisfactorily as reasonable supplements congruent with the given contexts. However, there are some cases where our experiment presents some problems. The following example from Pyojun Kuko˘ Taesajo˘n and Park and Sohn (2002) is such a case. (44)

(=26) a.

Onul chayyuk sikan-ey ssilum-ul paywe-ss-ketun. Kulentey, swuep-i kkuthnako aitul-kkili swi-nun sikan-ey ssilum-pan-ul po˘llitaka han ai-ka tacchye-ss-e. ‘At today’s PE class we learned wrestling. And, you know what? During the break time after the class, kids wrestled one another and one of us got hurt.’

b.

RQ:

Ecci sin-na-nun ssilum-ul paywu-n hwu-ey ai-tul-i sulo kyelwu-ci anh-ko kamanhi iss-keysse. ‘No wonder one of the kids would get hurt left unsupervised after learning wrestling in PE.’

c.

Implicature: When children learn (such an exciting but dangerous sport like) wrestling in their PE class, it’s natural for kids to try it out with other kids after class, and it’s no surprise that they get hurt by such a dangerous game. A kid got hurt, because we learned wrestling in PE class, and tried it out without supervision.

As seen in (44) above, the implicature provided sounds somewhat clumsy, unlike the preceding examples. Park and Sohn (2002) would analyze ketun in (44) as an instance of a sequence-expansion marker with a high boundary tone H%.11 In such an expansion, the authenticative feature of ketun might be said to have undergone grammaticalization even further, to the extent that ketun becomes a new breed of discourse marker that may be treated under a separate cover as a device that marks sequence expansion, as Park and Sohn (2002:315) suggest. The situation in (45) below seems to be one in which it is even harder to devise a rhetorical question. (45)

(=24) a.

Sengkyeng sihem-ul po-ketun-yo.

maycwu.

bible quiz-ACC take-KETUN-POL. Every week. ‘You see, having Bible classes, we take exams-KETUN. Every week.’ b.

RQ:

Wuli-ka ku pun-i elmana seymilha-n pupun-ey tayhayse kieklyek-i choh-un ci-lul ecci molu-kyess-eyo? ‘How could we not notice how smart the person in our class is?’

11

The high boundary tone H% noted in Park and Sohn (2002:309) may also be interpreted as a signal of a category of the deleted apodosis.

A.H.-O. Kim / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 1023–1041

c.

1035

Implicature: Since we have Bible class every week and take tests on the material, how could we not know how smart the person is since we all take the same tests, and he gives the right answer for every question no matter how difficult or even weird the questions are.

In another situation, such as in (45) above, some contextual enrichment, which Noh (2000) would characterize as an instance of ‘metarepresentation,’ (Sperber and Wilson, 1986; Noh, 2000) may be inevitable. Nonetheless, though limited and somewhat indirect, the results of devising RQ apodoses in the above experiment are encouraging and rather significant. No matter how different DM-ketun and CM-ketun are in terms of function, the obvious derivational connection between them can hardly be falsified. The successful ‘restoration’ through RQ strongly indicates that DM-ketun has not become totally severed from its original connection with CM-ketun. The two markers are diachronically connected through rhetorical questions as a catalyst in the DM marker grammaticalization. 5.3. Suspension of rhetorical questions Recall that occurrences of protasis with the conditional marker ketun (CM-ketun) are found to be interactional even in an early stage and that they play a pragmatic role as a quasi-fact-providing source. The acquisition of such authenticating qualities had been reinforced over time and it might have reached the saturation point. As it became established as a fullblown authenticating source, the ketun protasis was allowed to fill its apodosis slot with a rhetorical question. Elders of Old and Middle Korean would have loved to use a ketun-based RQ as a powerful speech-act tool for the purpose of making their inferiors obedient. This stage may be identified as the RQ stage, or Stage C, as shown in (32) above. Frequent usage of the ketun-based RQ may have produced several interrelated results: (i) the hypertrophy or dilation of the authentication role of ketun protasis; (ii) an increasing degree of independence, which led to the suspension of the RQ apodosis itself; (iii) the ketun connective itself came to represent the [authenticative] protasis and eventually became an authentication agent. In consequence, an independent ketun-protasis construction with no apodosis emerged — the use of ketun as a speech-act tool in discourse, namely as the discourse marker ketun, arose all by iself in isolation. 5.4. Morphological evidence In the previous section, we showed a possible derivation path via rhetorical questions. But, why does the grammaticalization go selectively, only through RQs but not through other possibilities, like other interactional sentence moods? It appears that the key to understanding the genesis of DM-ketun lies critically upon the recognition of ketun’s morphological composition. As alluded above, ketun consists of several isolatable morphological units and such units may be attributed to the formation of the ketun discourse marker. Morphologically, the conditional connective ketun may be analyzed as having two components: (i)/ke/as an effective marker and (ii)/tun/as a marker for the conditional inherently associated with the semantic feature of [evidential] or [factuality]. The second half of the component may be further analyzed into meaningful parts: te and un. The following section will investigate these morphological elements and demonstrate how they contribute to the development of the stranded ketun construct. 5.4.1. The effective/ke/ The morpheme ke is found as early as Old Korean in forms like h^ ke (tu)n/h^ ke n tay (when/if one does . . .)/h^ ke nul (because one does . . .) (Yang, 1945/1965:219). It is noted that in the Shilla kukyo˘l orthographic system, the morpheme ke is transcribed using the phonetic ideogram [TD$INLE] , but it is also transcribed (particularly in the later period) by another ideogram, [TD $INLE] , which means ‘existence, to locate/stay in somewhere,’ which implicates factuality or actualization. Yang’s special remarks on the semantic orthography of [TD$INLE] , pronounced [TD$INLE] (cay), despite its apparent departure from the phonetically faithful [TD$INLE] ([TD$INLE] ), is insightful in understanding the true function of the morpheme ke. The morpheme ke, referred to as the ‘effective’ suffix (following Martin, 1992:258), occurs in sentences of nondeclarative moods, such as imperative, hortative, and sequential.12 Items in (46) below show various syntactic environments for the occurrence of the effective ke. (46)

a.

V- ke-la

‘do as I say, so that I’

b.

V-ke-na

‘whether x or y’

12 Martin (1992) characterizes the Middle Korean aspect formative /ke/ as follows: ‘‘[the formative ke] was attached to stems to make what we are calling the EFFECTIVE stems. Forms made on the effective stem are interpreted as sometimes a presumed future and sometimes as a definite past, depending on the form and the context. The effective and retrospective were mutually exclusive aspects in Middle Korean and they seem to have functioned as opposites. Both have become less common in modern Korean and their earlier meanings are not so apparent’’ (258). Martin (1992:466) mentioned Ko’s (1980) work, where the vowel-initial version of the effective morpheme was analyzed as being used primarily with transitive verbs, while the velar-initial version with intransitives, including adjectives and copula. Martin also referred to King’s (1988) criticism of Ko’s analysis by saying that ‘‘King refines Ko’s analysis by distinguishing ‘highly transitive’ so that many of the exceptions that Ko found are explained as due to the ‘low’ transitivity of the verb in question. They often involve an unmarked object (incorporated by the verb to make an intransitive expression) or they refer to the lack of potential/ability . . . on the nominative marking of a substantive nominalization when it is the complement of a negative auxiliary, and on the source of the suspective -ti as the nominalizer t + nominative marker i.’’ At any rate, Yang’s (1945/1965) characterization of the effective ke is most useful in our grappling with the functions of ketun.

A.H.-O. Kim / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 1023–1041

1036

c.

V-ke-tun

‘if/when,’

d.

V-ke-ni

‘with the thought that. . .’

e.

V-ke-nul

‘since. . . ,’

f.

V-ke-ntay

‘since . . . ,’

When V-ke occurs in an imperative as in (46a), the speaker seems to tell the hearer that the instructed action must be actualized so that the former can move on to an upcoming action smoothly. In (46b), the speaker emphasizes events x and y as being well established or being most likely established facts. Likewise, by making use of the V-ke- phrases in (46d)–(46f), the speaker (usually, an elderly figure) lends an air of authority to his/her point so as to discourage refutation. In other words, the format of V-ke seems to have the effect of establishing V as facts being firmly realized or most likely to be realized. This suggests that ketun has a certain degree of the pluperfect quality, and this very quality seems to be what the speaker exploits for the purposes of commanding, imposing requests, making excuses, making apologetic or high-handed recommendations, and so on. Martin’s (1992) term ‘effective’ for the ke morpheme satisfies the search for an adequate characterization. 5.4.2. /te/ and/ un/ as morphological composite of tun As shown in the previous section, the morpheme ke of ketun is most likely an entity separate from tun and is what is generally referred to as hwakin.po˘p ([TD$INLE] confirmation formative) in Korean grammar, which is equivalent to the effective à la Martin (1992). Then what is tun? Some linguists — e.g. Ko (1989) and Chang (1991) — reject such a morphological analysis on the basis that forms like h^tan, h^-n^-t^n, h^-li-t^n are unattested, which may otherwise be evidence for the separability of ketun into ke and tun. However, many linguists — like So˘ (1988), Chang (1991), Lee (1998), Martin (1992), Koo (1989, 1999), and Lee (2000) — consider ketun a composite of two or three elements, as shown in (47), which is quoted from Martin (1992).13 (47)

Morphological construct of ketun (Martin, 1992:258) +

!

(a) ke

(b) t’

Marker:

Effective

Dependent noun

Topic/contrastive

(c) un/on

Conditional

Meaning:

(i) presumed future

‘fact’

‘given that.’

‘if, provided that;

(ii) definite past

ketun

surely, indeed’

An essentially identical analysis is also found in Chang’s (1991) three-element analysis. (48)

[[[l

]

Attributive

marker

t^ ]Imperfect noun

>

un ]

l. t^.n/l.tun

Contrastive marker

The compound /l- t^-un /changes to /t^n /by dropping the attributive marker, as shown below. (49)

a.

Base form:

-

l

b.

l-weakening:

-

Ø

t^/tu -n t^/tu n

c.

ke-insertion:

ke

-

t^ n/tun

According to this analysis, the construct is a complement-clause construction — the imperfect noun t^ as the head of the complement marked by the attributive formative l and it is followed by the contrastive marker un. (50) below is the structural representation of such a complement construction. (50)

[ [ [ [. . .. . .. [V ]STEM -Attributive]Complement

Clause]

Head]NP Contrastive Focus]NP’

The contrastive focus marker can be un or l-lang or a combination of both, l-lang-un. The conditional ketun or its dialectal or colloquial variant ketu.l.lang.un gives the meaning of ‘if, when, provided that . . . .’ It is noteworthy in this analysis that the elements are all indicative of realization or actualization of states of affairs, namely, the definite past by ke (47aii), t’ ‘fact’ (47b), and ‘given that . . .’ (47c). Such a triple [+FACTIVE] or [+QUASI FACTIVE] feature of the conditional morpheme ketun seems to induce a strong invited conditional reading. Namely, if the ketun-protasis is true, then the apodosis is true, and if the ketun protasis is false, then the apodosis is, accordingly, false. In other words, the ketun protasis serves as a sufficient condition for the truthfulness of the apodosis. This sufficiency feature gives the ketun protasis a special qualification for

13 Martin (1992:258) called the conditional suffix ketun the ‘‘provisional’’ formative (with a variant ketullang) with the meaning of ‘if, provided that . . . , given that . . . ; surely, indeed.’ As for the origin of ketun, he remarks: ‘‘[t]he MK form was ke-tun (also ke ton) and that apparently consists of the effective formative + an element tun (or ton),’’ and he further analyzed tun as a composite of the postmodifier t ‘fact’ + the subdued-focus particle un/on (‘given that . . .’). The nomenclatures ‘postmodifier’ (or ‘postnoun’) and ‘subdued focus modifier’ by Martin (1992:131) are more commonly referred to as ‘imperfect noun/dependent noun’ ([TD$INLE] pulwanjo˘n myo˘ngsa) and ‘topic/contrastive marker,’ respectively.

A.H.-O. Kim / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 1023–1041

1037

endorsing the high degree of truthfulness, which in turn allows the ketun-protasis to function as a ‘confirmative’ discourse marker or, as Park and Sohn (2002) coined, a ‘justicative’ discourse marker. 5.5. Evidential te as the morphological component of ketun One suggestion that may be made without contest at this time is that the source of ketun may have three separable morphological components: (i) the effective suffix /ke/, (ii) evidential /te/, and (iii) conditional /n-ten/ or /n-tul / as shown in (51) below. (51)

a.

Underlying form:

(i) ke

b.

Markers:

[Effective]

(ii) +

(iii)

te

+

[Evidential]

n-ten/tul [Conditional]

The effective /ke/ has been previously discussed above as having a strong connotation of something being actualized or intended to be actualized and as frequently being deployed in the imperative mood. Perhaps it is not accidental that this quality of ‘being realized/actualized’ is achieved via the Old Korean Hyangchal character [TD$INL E] ([TD$INL E] ), which denotes the existence of a thing or a person. In this sense, Martin’s nomenclature ‘effective’ for the particle ke is the very thing desired. The morpheme te is generally known as a penultimate suffix of ‘retrospective tense ([TD$INLE] )’ among Korean grammarians (Chwe, 1929/1971; Sohn, 1975; Shin, 1986; Ko, 1981; Im et al., 1987, inter alia.). This paper labels it a marker of evidentiality. The linguistic properties of te receive a remarkably thorough scrutiny in Sohn (1975/1986), although the author refers to it as a traditional terminology ‘retrospective past ([TD$INLE] ).’ Sohn (1999:235) characterizes the retrospective mood te suffix as denoting an act or a state of the speaker’s past observation or experience. He singles out three elements in the semantic structure of te: (i) REPORTER, (ii) PERCEIVE, and (iii) REFERENT PAST POINT. This means that the semantics of the evidential te involve three layers of events, namely, the event referred to; the event of the speaker’s direct observation of such an event; and the event of reporting the eye-witnessed event to the hearer. These layers of events are shown in the following example (52). (52)

Yuna-ka ca-ko is-te- la. Yuna-NOM sleep-ProgrPres Retros S-Final.Decl.Ending (i)

Yuna was sleeping.

(ii)

‘[I report that [I saw that [Yuna was sleeping]]].’

The English translation of (52) may simply be (52i). However, in reality, the message conveyed by the sentence is more adequately expressed by (52ii), which contains three events, as shown in (53) below. (53)

a.

[Yuna is sleeping at t1]

b.

[I eye-witnessed [Yuna is sleeping at t1] at t2]

c.

[I report to you at t3 that [I eye-witnessed at t2 [the baby is sleeping] at t1]

What is illustrated in (53) is that there was an event [Yuna’s sleeping for some time] as shown in (53a). (53b) represents the speaker’s witnessing Yuna’s sleeping, say, at 11:45. (53c) is the speaker’s report to her friend at noon what was seen earlier, i.e. fifteen minutes ago. The events involved in the speaker’s report may be generalized schematically, as in (54) below. (54)

Layered structure of the semantics of a te-sentence in Korean [ [ [ Event1 at t1 ]

Event2 at t2]

Event3 at t3 ]

Yuna’s sleeping

the speaker’s eye-witnessing

the speaker’s reporting

Lee and Ramsey (2000:179) also isolate four critical characteristics of te: (i) te subjectifies and transmits facts eye-witnessed by the speaker from outside the present locale; (ii) te is a grammatical element that cannot be used in connection with something occurring here and now; (iii) te cannot occur in the imperative; (iv) te is a marker of relative tense in the sense that the time of the event precedes with the reference to the time of perception. This is exemplified in (55) below, which is quoted from the same source. (55)

Kicha-nun han sikan-hwuey chulpal.ha-te-la train-TOP one hour-after depart-TE-DEC a.

‘[I see] the train will leave an hour from now.’ [Lee and Ramsey, 2000:181]

b.

‘I am telling you now that the train was to leave one hour later as I realized by looking at the schedule at the train station (I didn’t know until that time) that the train hadn’t left and it was to leave one hour later from then.’

A.H.-O. Kim / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 1023–1041

1038

Sentence (55) is translated with slight modification of the original as (55a). The situation may be explained by the (55b) version of the translation, which reflects better than the original translation (55a) the layered event structure. Via the (55b) translation, (55) is paraphrased as follows: the speaker is telling a friend about an experience she recently had. Namely, that the speaker wasn’t quite certain about catching the train until actually arriving at the train station that day. Finding out by looking at the schedule that the train was to depart one hour later, she realized she hadn’t missed the train after all. In this episode, the train’s departure took place in the past. However, it is a future event which takes place after the speaker’s discovery (realization of the train’s departure time). What the speaker witnessed was not the actual departure of the train but rather the train’s departure time, which was to take place after the speaker’s discovery of that time. Now consider the following. (56)

Kicha-nun hansikan-cen-ey chulpal.ha-yess-te-la train-TOP one hour-ago depart- TE-DEC a.

‘[I see] the train left an hour ago.’ [Ibid: 181]

b.

‘I am telling you that the train had left before I realized.’

Again, for the purpose of exposition, (56) is interpreted by using the version of translation in (56b). The speaker is telling (at t3) a story to a friend about missing a train — when arriving at the station, the speaker found (at t2) that the train had left an hour ago (at t1). So, the speaker missed the train. Lee and Ramsey include some examples of the te morpheme occurring with adjectives such as chwupta (be cold), musepta (be frightening), mayp-ta (be spicy). One such example is quoted here. (57)

Na-nun cey 2 akcang-i kacang coh-te-la[0,2-3]I-TOP second movement-NOM most like- -TE-DEC a. I [find] the second movement to be the best.’ [Ibid: 182] b. (I enjoyed the last night concert. But,) I found the second movement to be the best. b’. I found its second movement to be the best. Not just last night, I always find it the best.

This example may be interpreted as having two possible readings. One refers to the particular repertoire item (57b) and the other (57b’) to not just the speaker’s experience but also to the speaker’s present liking. The identification of /te/ as a marker for evidentiality is surprisingly controversial among linguists, e.g. Aikhenvald.14 Note that here the presentential ending te-suffix is reminiscent of the grammatical category known as ‘evidential.’ So far the data presented indicate that the function of the morpheme te is a grammatical device that marks ‘the source of the information’ (the speaker’s direct eye-witnessing in this case). The marker te in Korean specifies the speaker’s direct eyewitnessing as the source of the information in the utterance. In this sense, then, the Korean te morpheme seems to be essentially an evidential. That is to say, a sentence, the verb of which is suffixed with te, is in the evidential mood. The information conveyed by the grammatical formative te is what the speaker witnessed at the site of the event in question. The source of information that the speaker conveys in a te-sentence is the speaker’s direct observation or experience. As far as evidentiality is concerned, Korean may be classified as a language belonging to the group of A1-type systems (information acquired through vision, hearing, or other senses) à la Aikhenvald (2004). The Korean evidential suffix te has the following characteristics: (58)

(i)

The speaker’s reporting of a message (the first-person effect)

(ii)

The speaker’s report as the direct eye-witness of the event as the source of the reported information

(iii)

(iv)

Involvement of three distinct time references t 1:

the time of reporting

t 2:

the time of the speaker’s witnessing the on-going event or the result of an earlier event

t 3:

the time the event actually took place prior to the observation (t2)

Independence from truth value judgment. The time of reporting (uttering) is always to be [present] and cannot be negated. What may be negated is its host predicate but not the evidential te itself.

14 Aikhenvald (2004:129) remarks: ‘‘The so-called ‘retrospective mood’ in Korean (Chang, 1996, Sohn, 1994:48, 341-342, 350) marked with the suffix -teoalso operates on the conjunct–disjunct principle. Its main function is the validation of ‘past perception, observation, or experience’ of the speaker in a statement, or of the hearer in a question rather than establishing the information source. Hence its semantic breadth depending on the context, retrospective mood can refer to a directly witnessed event, inference, or reported speech. As demonstrated by Chang (1996:193), this is not a primarily evidential form (also see Sohn, 1986:137–154). Korean has yet another strategy allowing it to distinguish between describing a character’s mental state from an internal point of view and describing it from the point of view of external observer. This is achieved through a combination of verbal derivation and nominal case marker (see discussion by Chun and Zubin, 1990). However, this is not directly linked to person-marking or evidential extensions’’.

A.H.-O. Kim / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 1023–1041

1039

These evidentiality features associated with the ketun conditional suffix play a significant role in establishment of the stranded ketun construct in Korean discourse, as is shown in the previous sections. 5.6. Conditional suffix n.ten As far as the third element — i.e. the conditional n.tun in (51) — is concerned, we find examples such as (59)–(61) in Nam (1997:250), in which the item is defined as having the meaning of ‘even if’ or ‘if’. (59)

Mulle ka-ten.teyn mokswum m^ch^li-ing-i-kka. retreat-TENTEYN life complete-Q

[Yongka51chang: (Nam, 1997:250)]

‘(Even) If one retreats, would one save life?’ (60)

Cwuku-n hwu-ey nwuy’uchu-ntul michwuli-ye.

[So˘kpo24:28 (Nam, 1997:250)]

die-after regret-NTUL serve ‘If one regrets after one died, would it serve?’ (61)

Son-kwa tali meta-h^-ntul ke s^i elmachi-li [Manensa (Nam, 1997:250)] hand and leg far apart-NTUL the distance how much be ‘Even if one may say hands and legs are apart, how far would they be apart?’

The item -ntun may further be dissected into /n/ + /te/ + /n/ as the combination of an attributive marker, an evidential or an abstract nominal, and a contrastive marker. Nonetheless, this possibility is a topic appropriate for future study. 6. Conclusion This paper examined various aspects of the sentence-terminal discourse marker ketun in Korean. Ketun, characteristically marked phonologically with a high boundary tone H%, is effectively used for various speech acts — making excuses, giving advice, apologizing, clarifying, mitigating face-threatening acts, and the like. Ketun also functions as a sequence expander bridging one discourse segment to another. The ketun conditional connective is operative in limited types of interactional sentences, such as imperative, hortative, rhetorical questions, and the like. Diachronic studies have convincingly demonstrated that the discourse marker ketun (DM-ketun) is an apparent derivative of the conditional marker ketun (CM-ketun). Several recent studies suggest that the grammaticalization process of CM-ketun to DM-ketun went through three distinct stages and characterize these changes as instances of subjectification and intersubjectification. Despite their significant contributions, these studies leave unexplored the actual dynamics of those functional changes of ketun from one stage to another. No doubt subjectification (and intersubjectification for that matter) adequately characterizes the nature of pragmatic shifts involved in ketun, but subjectification per se does not actually ‘change’ ketun’s function from one kind to another. The actual mechanism of change in grammaticalization processes is beyond the scope of the definition of subjectification. As a departure, this study introduces a working hypothesis for the ketun grammaticalization: DM-ketun is a direct descendant of a ketun-protasis co-occuring with the rhetorical question (RQ) structure. DM-ketun is developed from [p-ketun, RQ] through pragmatic deletion of RQ. The rationale behind this proposal is the following: the examination demonstrates that the only clausal form for apodosis compatible with a sentence suffixed by the discourse marker ketun is a special sentence type, that is, the rhetorical question form. The advantages of this analysis are its theoretical economy and simplicity. In the proposed [p-ketun, RQ] structure, the more p-ketun is saturated with the factivity-like features, the more it becomes independent to the extent that RQ itself is released from the structure. In other words, the ketun of the p-ketun protasis itself (free from RQ) acquires the feature of [AUTHENTICATIVE] or [JUSTIFICATIVE] so as to establish itself as an endorsing agent of the truthfulness of the speaker’s statement in discourse. Hence the rise of the discourse marker ketun as a powerful speech-act tool. The following observations support the proposed hypothesis: (i) the [FACTIVITY] or [QUASI-FACTIVITY] feature is associated with component elements, /ke/ + /t/ + /un/ (tentatively following Martin, 1992) of the ketun morphology. It is a combination of three morphemes, i.e. the effective suffix ke, an evidential suffix te, and the focus marker un; (ii) the distribution pattern of the ketun-protasis is limited to an interactional sentence mood — generalized imperative forms (command, demand, hortative, promissory); (iii) the erstwhile (or ancestral) conditional function (of CM-ketun) of the grammaticalized DM-ketun is recoverable only through a special sentence mood, that is, a rhetorical question; and no other forms, such as sentences of imperative, hortative, or promissory, render well-formed results. A noteworthy observation made in this study is the phenomenon of the involvement of RQ in the development of DMketun. As seen in section 5, the ketun-based rhetorical question plays a critical role in the grammatical shift of ketun from a conditional connective to a discourse marker, and yet the rhetorical question itself leaves no apparent traces in the endproduct. In fact, the rise of the discourse marker is possible only at the expense of the rhetorical question itself. What is intriguing here is that the involvement of RQ in grammaticalization is something comparable to the phenomenon of the

1040

A.H.-O. Kim / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 1023–1041

catalysis effect in chemical reactions. Since grammaticalization may be regarded essentially as representing a series of changes in grammatical categories, it would not be surprising for one to find a ‘positive catalyst’-like linguistic substance in grammaticalization processes. In this sense, the phenomenon of rhetorical questions acting as catalysts in the formation of the Korean ketun discourse marker may serve as a rare but potentially significant matter for future cross-linguistic investigation of grammaticalization. Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the editorial office’s incredible patience and to the two anonymous reviewers for their rigorous criticisms, which were hugely helpful for the conclusion of this paper. I am indebted to Sung-Yeo Chung of Osaka University and Jong-Bok Lee of Taegu University for making recent publications available for my writing. As usual, I benefited from F. Dale Budslick-Kim’s insights as well as her editorial assistance. Serena Kim and Aaron Allehoff helped improve my earlier version of this paper. I thank them. All remaining errors are mine. References Ahn, Hyo-Kyo˘ng, 2000. Jungse kuko˘ ketun-e taehayo˘ (On the Middle Korean ketun). Inmunsahoe Kwahak Yonku 15 . Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Brown, Penelope, Levinson, Stephen C., 1978/1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Chang, I., 1996. Representation and mediate d’un suffix verbal, teo, en coreen contemporain. In: Guentcheva, Z. (Ed.), L’Enonciation mediatisee. LouvainParis, Editions Peeters, pp. 183–194. ˘ i, 1991. Jungse.kuko˘-u ˘ i joko˘n jo˘psok.o˘ mi-e taehan yo˘nku (On the Middle Korean conditional connectives). Kuko˘ Yo˘nku 104 Kuko˘ Chang, Yun-Hu Yo˘nkuhoe. Comrie, Bernard, 1984. Russian. In: Chisholm, William, Jr., S. (Eds.), 1984: Interrogativity. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, pp. 7–46. Comrie, Bernard, 1986. Conditionals: a typology. In: Elizabeth Closs Traugott, ter Meulen, A., Snitzer Reilly, J., Ferguson, Charles A. (Eds.), On Conditionals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Chun, S.A., Zubin, D.A., 1990. Experiential vs. agentive constructions in Korean narrative. In: Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. General Session and Parasession on the Legacy of Grice. pp. 81–93. ˘ ng-u ˘ l jungsim-u ˘ lo (On the conChung, Hye-So˘n, 2007. Kaehwaki jo˘psok.o˘mi ketumyun, ul.spun.tele, ciman^n-e kwanhan hyo˘ngthae.thongsajo˘k kinu ˘ no˘-wa Jo˘ngpo.Sahwe nectives ketumyun, ul.spun.tele, ciman^n in the Korean modernization period: focusing on their morpho-syntactic functions). O (Languages and Information Societies) 8, 97–113. ˘ msa, Seoul. Chwe, Hyo˘n-Pae, 1971. Uri Mal-bon (Our Grammar). Jo˘ngu Geis, Michael L., Zwicky, Arnold M., 1971. On invited inferences. Linguistic Inquiry 2, 561–566. Herring, Susan, 1991. Grammaticalization of rhetorical questions in Tamil. In: ClossTaugott, Elizabeth, Heine, Bernd (Eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization. Volume 1. Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Hopper, Paul L., Traugott, Elizabeth C., 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. ˘ l wihan Hankuk’o˘ Munpo˘p (Korean Grammar for Foreigners). Yonsei Taehakkyo Chulp’anIm, Hon Bin, Hong, Kyo˘ng-Pyo, Chang, Sook-In, 1987. Wekukin-u pu, Seoul. King, J.P.R., 1988. History of reported speech in Korean. Paper read at LSA annual meeting. ˘ i sisang kwa so˘po˘p (The Middle Korean Tense and Predication). Thap Chulpansa, Seoul. Ko, Yo˘ng-Ko˘n., 1981. Jungse kuk’o˘ u Ko, Yo˘ng-Ko˘n., 1989. Kuko˘ Hyo˘ngthaeron yo˘nku (A Study of the Korean Morphology). Seoul National University Press, Seoul. Ko¨nig, Ekkhard, 1986. Conditionals, concessive conditionals and concessive: areas of contrast, overlap and neutralization. In: Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, ter Meulen, A., Snitzer Reilly, J., Ferguson, Charles A. (Eds.), On Conditionals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 229–246. Ko¨nig, Ekkhard, 1991. The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective. Routledge, London/New York. ˘ i wo˘nhyo˘ngt’ae-wa ketun [TD$INLE] Koo, Hyun Jung, 1989. Joko˘n-u (Prototypical Conditional Marker and ketun) Festschrift for Ceyhyo Lee Yong-ju. Hansem, Seoul, pp. 117–131. Koo, Hyun Jung, 1999. Grammaticalization of conditionals in Korean. Ohak Yongu (Language Research) 54 (4), 543–558. Kukrip Kuko˘, Yo˘nkuwo˘n, 1999. Pyojun Kuko˘ Daesajo˘n (sang-jung-ha). Dusan Dong-A, Seoul. ˘ m Yo˘ng, 2000. Yo˘nkyo˘l o˘mi ‘kenul’, ‘ketun’-u ˘ i hyo˘ngso˘ng-kwajo˘ng yo˘nku (On the derivational process of connectives kenul and ketun). Mo˘kwo˘n Lee, Ku Kuko˘ Kukmunhak 6, 229–244. Lee, Iksop, Im, Hong-Bin, 1983. Kuko˘ Munpo˘pron (A Theory of Korean Grammar). Hakyo˘nsa, Seoul. Lee, Iksop S., Ramsey, Robert, 2000. The Korean Language. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY. Lee, Keedong, 1993. Korean Grammar on Semantic-Pragmatic Principles. Hankuk Munhwasa, Seoul. ˘ i munpo˘psajo˘k kochal (A diachronic examination of the connective ketun in Korean grammar). Kwukyo˘l Yo˘nku 4, 23– Lee, Yong, 1998. Yo˘nkyo˘l o˘mi ‘ketun’u 55. Martin, Samuel E., 1954. Korean Morphophonemics. Linguistics Society of America, Baltimore. Martin, Samuel E., et al. (Eds.), 1967. A Korean-English Dictionary. Yale University Press, New Haven/London. Martin, Samuel E., 1992. A Reference Grammar of Korean. Charles E. Tuttle Company, Rutland, VT. Nam, Kwang-Wu (Ed.), 1997. Kyohwa Koo˘ Sajo˘n. Kyohaksa, Seoul. Noh, Eun-Ju., 2000. Metarepresentation: A Relevance-Theory Approach. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Ogura, Shinpei, 1929/1974. Kyōka oyobi ritō no kenkyu¨ (Folk songs and the system of ‘ritō of Shilla). In: Collection of Theses by Dr. Shinpei Ogura, vol. 1. The Japanese Literature Association, Kyoto University. Park, Mee-Jeong, Sohn, Sung-Oak S., 2002. Discourse, grammaticalization, and intonation: an analysis of -ketun in Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 10, 306–319. Park, Yong-Yae, 1998. A discourse analysis of the Korean connective ketun in conversation. In: Byung-Soo Park, James Hye-Suk Yoon (Eds.), Selected Papers from the 11th International Conference on Korean Linguistics. Hankuk Munhwa-sa, Seoul, pp. 861–970. Rhee, Seongha, 2004. From discourse to grammar: grammaticalization and lexicalization of rhetorical questions in Korean. In: Fulton, Gordon, et al. (Eds.), LACUUS Forum XXX; Language, Thought, Reality. Lacus, Houston, TX, pp. 415–423. ˘ i Pangpo˘p-kwa Silje (Method and Practice in Meaning Analysis). Hanshin Munhwasa, Seoul. Shin, Hyun-Sook., 1986. imi-u ˘ i hyo˘ngthae-u ˘ imi (Morphology and semantics of Korean verb endings). Ph.D. Dissertation, Seoul National So˘, Thae-Ryong, 1988. Kuko˘ Hwalyong o˘mi-u University. Sohn, Ho-Min, 1975. Retrospection in Korean. Language Research 11 (1), 87–103. Sohn, Ho-Min., 1986. Linguistic Expeditions. Hanshin Publishing Company, Seoul.

A.H.-O. Kim / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 1023–1041

1041

Sohn, Ho-Min., 1999. The Korean Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Sperber, Dan, Wilson, Deirdre, 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition, Second Edition. Blackwell Publishing Company, Oxford, UK/Cambridge, USA. Traugott, Elizabeth C., 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65, 31–55. Traugott, Elizabeth C., Dasher, Richard B., 2001. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Traugott, Elizabeth, C, Ko¨nig, Ekkenhard, 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In: Traugott, Elizabeth C., Heine, Bernt (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co., pp. 189–218 (2 Vols.). Van der Auwera, John, 1986. Conditionals and speech acts. In: Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, ter Meulen, A., Snitzer Reilly, J., Ferguson, Charles A. (Eds.), On Conditionals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 197–214. Yang, Chu-Tong, 1945/1965. Choso˘n Koga Yo˘nku (A Study on Old Korean Folksongs). Pakmun Chulpansa, Seoul.