Cover not available

Article published In: Korean Linguistics
Vol. 18:1 (2022) ► pp.48–75

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB

Discourse functions of Korean ‘yes’ words

 | The Ohio State University
 | University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 28 March 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/kl.00013.pyu
Abstract
This study examines discourse functions of Korean ‘yes’ words from an interactional perspective based on naturally-occurring conversation data. Tokens of yey, ney, ey, ung, um, and e in Korean are widely recognized as affirmative responses. A close examination of these tokens, however, reveals wide-ranging interactional functions through which speakers express active engagement, share information, negotiate meaning, and maintain discourse coherence. The present study identifies a total of fifteen discourse-pragmatic functions of Korean ‘yes’ words: (1) affirmative answer, (2) confirmation, (3) acceptance, (4) agreement, (5) answer to summons, (6) acknowledgement, (7) change-of-state, (8) change-of-activity, (9) response solicitation, (10) reinforcement, (11) other initiation of repair, (12) closing of phone call, (13) continuer, (14) proposal to discontinue the on-going action for the sake of a larger course of action, and (15) arguably hesitation marker. This study demonstrates that the interactional approach enables the discovery of varied discourse functions of a type of linguistic items, which may not be readily available in dictionaries or grammar reference guides.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 3.The data
  • 4.Discourse functions of Korean ‘yes’ tokens
    • 4.1Affirmative answer to a ‘yes/no’ question
    • 4.2Confirmation
    • 4.3Acceptance of offer, suggestion, or request
    • 4.4Agreement
    • 4.5Answer to a summons
    • 4.6Acknowledgement
    • 4.7Change-of-state
    • 4.8Change-of-activity
    • 4.9Response solicitation
    • 4.10Reinforcement
    • 4.11Other-initiation of repair
    • 4.12Closing of phone call
    • 4.13Continuer
    • 4.14Proposal to discontinue the on-going action for the sake of a larger course of action
    • 4.15Hesitation marker
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Closing remarks
  • Acknowledgment
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations used in the interlinear gloss
  • References
References (39)
References
Angles, Jeffrey, Ayumi Nagatomi, & Mineharu Nakayama. 2000. Japanese responses hai, ee, and un : Yes, no, and beyond. Language and Communication 201: 55–86. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beach, Wayne A. 1993. Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “okay” usage. Journal of Pragmatics 191: 325–352. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1995a. Conversation analysis: “okay” as a clue for understanding consequentiality. In The Consequentiality of Communication, ed. Stuart Sigman, 121–161. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 121–161.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1995b. Preserving and constraining options: “okays” and ‘official’ priorities in medical interviews. In The talk of the clinic: Explorations in the analysis of medical and therapeutic discourse, ed. George H. Morris and Ronald J. Cheneil, 259–289. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cho, Young-mee, Hyo Sang Lee, Carol Schulz, Ho-min Sohn & Sung-Ock Sohn. 2009. Integrated Korean: Beginning 1. 2nd ed. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Integrated Korean: Intermediate 1. 2nd ed. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drummond, Kent & Robert Hopper. 1993. Back channels revisited: Acknowledgement tokens and speakership incipiency. Research on Language and Social Interaction 26 (2): 157–177. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia & Johannes Wagner. 1996. Interaction-based studies of language: Introduction. Pragmatics 6 (3): 277–279. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givon, Talmy. 1979. From discourse to syntax: grammar as a processing strategy. In Syntax and semantics. Vol. 12: Discourse and syntax, ed. Talmy Givon, 81–112. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, ed. J. Maxwell Atkinson and John C. Heritage, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1979. Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In Syntax and semantics. Vol. 12: Discourse and syntax, ed. Talmy Givon, 213–241. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1988. Emergent grammar and the a priori grammar postulate. In Linguistics in Contact, ed. Deborah Tannen, 117–134. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56 (2): 251–299. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1984. The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language 60 (4): 703–751. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1984. Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowlegement tokens yeah and mm hm. Papers in Linguistics 171: 197–206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, Kyu-hyun. 1993. Other-initiated repair sequences in Korean conversation as interactional resources. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 3, ed. Soonja Choi, 3–18. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1999. Phrasal unit boundaries and organization of turns and sequences in Korean conversation. Human Studies 221: 425–446. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, Kyu-Hyun & Kyung-Hee Suh. 1998. Confirmation sequences as interactional resources in Korean language proficiency interviews. In Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency, ed. Richard Young and Agnes W. He, 297–332. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kitagawa, Chisato. 1980. Saying ‘yes’ in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 105–120. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson. ed. 1996. Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, ed. J. Maxwell Atkinson and John C. Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Language 501: 696–735. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1982. Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk, ed. Deborah Tannen, 71–93. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2000. When ‘others’ initiate repair. Applied Linguistics 21 (2): 205–243. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis, Volume 11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Harvey Sacks. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 71: 289–327. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson & Harvey Sacks. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 531: 361–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selting, Margaret & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2001. Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sohn, H.-M. 1999. The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 1996. On repeats and responses in Finnish conversations. In Interaction and grammar, ed. Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra Thompson, 277–327. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2004. No no no and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. Human Communication Research 30 (2): 260–293. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Elizabethe Couper-Kuhlen. 2005. The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies 7 (4–5): 481–505. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wouk, Fay. 2001. Solidarity in Indonesian conversation: The discourse marker ya. Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2): 171–191. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yoon, Kyung-Eun. 2010. Questions and responses in Korean conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 421: 2782–2798. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Don H. 1993. Acknowledgement tokens and speakership incipiency revisited. Research on Language and Social Interaction 26 (2): 179–194. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Ahn, Mikyung & Foong Ha Yap
2025. A pragmatic analysis of discourse marker 넵 neyp ‘yep’ in Korean computer-mediated communication. Journal of Pragmatics 246 ► pp. 134 ff. DOI logo
Choe, Hanwool
2024. “할미 마음이 아파요”: Korean Honorific Speech Level Markers as Contextualization Cues in Family Instant Messages. In Exploring Korean Politeness Across Online and Offline Interactions [Advances in (Im)politeness Studies, ], ► pp. 35 ff. DOI logo
Hasin, Hanafiah , Anita Jamil, Herlina Helmy & Yang Chik Johari
2024. The Influence of Prayer, Al-Quran Recitation, Physical Exercise, and Holidays on Positive Thinking: Exploring Stress Coping Strategies for Mental Well-Being. Information Management and Business Review 16:3(I) ► pp. 500 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue