Cover not available

Article published In: Language and Linguistics
Vol. 21:1 (2020) ► pp.33–53

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

The use of the Korean first person possessive pronoun nay vis-à-vis wuli

 | Ajou University
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

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

Published online: 2 January 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00056.hye
Abstract
This paper takes a corpus-driven approach to the Korean first person possessive pronoun nay with reference to its plural counterpart wuli. The examination of the frequent noun collocates of the two pronouns in Sejong Corpus reveals the close connection between nay and inalienable entities as well as persons lower than the speaker. Meanwhile, wuli is strongly coupled with places or organizations alongside persons higher than the speaker. Pragmatic principles account for the difference between the kinship term collocates of the two pronouns, such as Horn’s (Horn, Lawrence. 1984. Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Schiffrin, Deborah (ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications (Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1984), 11–42. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; . 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) R-principle or Levinson, Stephan. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar M-principle. The non-prototypical singular use of wuli triggers a pragmatic effect of expressing, for example, affection. The frequent collocation of nay with foreign/loan nouns is a reflection of the tendency that people more interested in social mobility (younger generation and women) are more ready to employ nay rather than the singular wuli and to accept foreign/loan words. The meaning of nay emerging from its interaction with noun collocates is that it is closely connected with being inalienable, private, or unshared. Meanwhile, the singular meaning of wuli is pragmatically derived, which is construed as being grouped, deferent, or general.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Possession and possessive constructions
    • 2.2Possessive constructions and first person possessive pronouns in Korean
  • 3.Data collection and methods
  • 4.Analysis and discussion
    • 4.1Top collocates of wuli and nay
    • 4.2Abstract and concrete nouns
    • 4.3Kinship terms and social relation nouns
    • 4.4Body part nouns
    • 4.5Place and organization (PO) nouns
  • 5.Summary and conclusions
  • Sources
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
References (43)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2012. Possession and ownership: A cross-linguistic perspective. In Aikhenvald, Alexandra & Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.), Possession and ownership: A cross-linguistic typology, 1–64. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K. 1992. Linguistic correlates of gender and sex. English World-Wide 13(2). 173–218. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Choi, Hyun-Bae. 1961. Wulimalpon [Grammar of our language]. Seoul: Cengummwunhwasa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Choi, In Ji. 2012. Ilinching pokswu taymyengsauy celchacek uymiwa kwanleynseng [The procedural meaning of first person plural pronouns and relevance]. Enehak [The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal] 20(2). 171–197.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Christofaki, Rodanthi. 2018. Expressing the self in Japanese: Indexical expressions in the service of indexical thoughts. In Huang, Minyao & Jaszczolt, Kasia M. (eds.), Expressing the self: Cultural diversity and cognitive universals, 72–87. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2010. Basic linguistic theory volume 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Durieux, Frank. 1990. The meanings of the specifying genitive in English: A cognitive analysis (Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 66). Antwerp: Department of Linguistics, University of Antwerp.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2006. Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2015. A typology of non-prototypical uses of personal pronouns: Synchrony and diachrony. Journal of Pragmatics 881. 176–189. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet. 1992. An introduction to sociolinguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horn, Lawrence. 1984. Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Schiffrin, Deborah (ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications (Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1984), 11–42. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2013. First-person reference in discourse: Aims and strategies. Journal of Pragmatics 48(1). 57–70. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016. Meaning in linguistic interaction: Semantics, metasemantics, philosophy of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kempson, Ruth. 1977. Semantic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, Cheon-Hak. 2012. Soyu kwankyeywa soyu kwuseng [Possessive relations and possessive constructions]. Hankwuke uymihak [Korean Semantics] 391. 125–148.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, Jung-Nam. 2003. Hankwuke taymyengsa wuli uy uymiwa yongpep [The meaning and usage of the Korean pronoun wuli]. Hankwuke uymihak [Korean Semantics] 131. 257–274.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, Myung-Hee. 1987. {Uy}uy uymi kinung. [The semantic function of {uy}]. Ene [Korean Journal of Linguistics] 12(2). 248–260.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, Han-Gyu. 2007. Hankwuke taymyengsa wuli [A pragmatic and sociocultural approach to the so-called 1st person pronoun wuli in Korean]. Tamhwawa inci [Discourse and Cognition] 14(3). 155–178.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, Hong-Sik. 2007. Oylaye/oykwuke sayong mich swunhwae swuyong silthay cosa [A study on the use of foreign/ loan words and the acceptance of refined words]. Seoul: National Institute of the Korean Language. (Project report 11-1370252-000097-01.)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, Hye-Kyung. 2015. The corpus-pragmatic analysis of wuli. Tamhwawa inci [Discourse and Cognition] 22(3). 59–78.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. Self-referring in Korean with reference to Korean first-person markers. In Huang, Minyao & Jaszczolt, Kasia M. (eds.), Expressing the self: Cultural diversity and cognitive universals, 58–71. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, Iksop & Ramsey, Robert. 2001. The Korean language. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephan. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, George & Johnson-Laird, Philip. 1976. Language and perception. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mok, Jung-Su. 2007. Hankwuke cosa {uy}uy mwunpepcek ciwiwa uymi kinungey tayhaye [On the grammatical status and the semantic function of the Korean particle {uy}]. Kwukekyoyuk [The Education of Korean Language] 1231. 437–470.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nikiforidou, Kiki. 1991. The meanings of the genitive: A case study in semantic structure and semantic change. Cognitive Linguistics 2(2). 149–205. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Poutsma, Hendrik. 1916. A grammar of late modern English: For the use of continental, especially Dutch, students. Part 2: The parts of speech. Groningen: P. Nordhoff.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph & Greenbaum, Sidney & Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shin, Ki-Hyun. 2000. Grammaticalisation of social relationship. (Paper presented at 2000 Summer Conference of the Society of Modern Grammar, Daegu, 27 May 2000.)
Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sinclair, Melinda & Winckler, Walter. 1991. Relevance theory: Explaining verbal communication. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus 181. 1–97.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-Min. 1999. The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Korean. Seoul: Korea University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tanaka, Hiroaki. 2012. Scalar implicature in Japanese: Contrastive wa and intersubjectivity. (Paper presented at the 1st International Conference of the American Pragmatics Association (AMPRA), Charlotte, 19–21 October 2012.)
Tayler, John R. 1989. Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1996. Possessives in English: An exploration in cognitive grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van der Vegt, Wouter. 2014. Attitudes towards English loanwords in Dutch news broadcasts: The influence of gender and age. Leiden: Leiden University. (Master’s thesis.)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yoon, Jae-Hak. 2003. Tanswucek yongpepuy wuli [Singular wuli we]. Enewa cengpo [Language and Information] 7(2). 1–30.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. Soyuuy uymiyuheng: Hanyeng soyukwumwun uymichai. [Types of possessive meanings: Semantic differences between Korean and English possessives]. Enewa cengpo [Language and Information] 13(1). 93–125.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue