Cover not available

Article published In: Studies in Language
Vol. 49:3 (2025) ► pp.645–681

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

Two opposite implicatures of a focus particle

Korean stance markers with focus ya

ORCiD logo with link | Claremont McKenna College
Published online: 1 August 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.24043.kim
Abstract
Analyzing diachronic and synchronic corpus data and utilizing the theoretical approaches of grammaticalization and intersubjectification, this study investigates the development of two Korean stance markers: the “conceding marker” ha-ki-ya (pro-verb ha ‘do’+nominalizer ki+focus ya) and the now-obsolete “rejecting marker” V-ki-ya (V repeating an earlier verb whose proposition it rejects+ki+ya). How these two cognate forms sharing nominalizer ki and focus ya ended up encoding two opposite meanings has not been explored. This study demonstrates that focus ya can evoke two opposite scalar implicatures, “the most likely one” in scale-preserving contexts and “the least likely one” in scale-reversing contexts (e.g., negative or interrogative sentences), and suggests that the former implicature prompted the development of conceding ha-ki-ya, while the latter prompted that of rejecting V-ki-ya. The study further proposes that focus ya shares features with topic marker nun, which similarly participated in the coinage of two stance markers, conceding ha-ki-nun and rejecting V-ki-nun.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Theoretical frameworks
    • 2.2Previous studies
  • 3.Scalar implicatures and frequency information
    • 3.1Two scalar implicatures
    • 3.2Frequency information
  • 4.Grammaticalization of conceding stance marker ha-ki-ya
    • 4.1Linguistic devices for emphasizing obviousness
    • 4.2Adversative connective and verb repetition
    • 4.3Proposed developmental path of conceding ha-ki-ya
  • 5.Grammaticalization of rejecting stance marker V-ki-ya
    • 5.1Rhetorical questions depicting extreme events
    • 5.2Rhetorical questions making a strong negative statement
    • 5.3Proposed developmental path of rejecting marker V-ki-ya
  • 6.Conceding and rejecting stance markers with topic nun
    • 6.1Conceding stance marker ha-ki-nun
    • 6.2Rejecting stance marker V-ki-nun
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
References (83)
References
Abraham, Werner. 1991. The grammaticization of the German modal particles. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, volume 2 (Typological Studies in Language, 19), 31–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin. 1997. “I think” — An English modal particle. In Toril Swan and Olaf J. Westvik (eds.), Modality in Germanic languages: Historical and comparative perspectives, 1–47. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Understanding pragmatic markers: A variational pragmatic approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. Pragmatic markers as constructions: The case of anyway. In Gunther Kaltenböck, Evelien Keizer & Arne Lohmann (eds.), Outside the clause (Studies in Language Companion Series, 178), 29–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beeching, Kate & Ulrich Detges (eds.). 2014. Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte, Lobke Ghesquière & Freek Van de Velde (eds.). 2014. Intersubjectivity and intersubjectification in grammar and discourse: Theoretical and descriptive advances (Benjamins Current Topics 65). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: De Guyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. Pathways in the development of Pragmatic Markers in English. In Ans van Kemenade & Bettelou Los (eds.), The handbook of the history of English, 307–334. Hoboken: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2008. The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2014. If you choose/like/prefer/want/wish: The origin of metalinguistic and politeness functions. In Marianne Hundt (ed.), Late Modern English syntax in context, 271–90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2017. Evolution of pragmatic markers in English: Pathways of change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chae, Woojin. 1977. Hyentay kwuke thukswu cosauy yenkwu [Study on present-day Korean special particles]. Kwuke Yenkwu Special Issue 39.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Choi, Youngran. 2016. A study on the information structure in Korean language. Seoul: Seoul National University Ph.D. dissertation.
. 2021. On the meaning of a modal-conjunctive adverb ‘hagineun’. Korean Semantics 731. 83–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth & Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen. 2011. Introduction: Grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification of discourse markers. In Liesbeth Degand & Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen (eds.), Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization and/or (Inter)subjectification: Methodological issues for the study of discourse markers. Linguistics Special issue 49(2). 287–294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2006. Discourse particles and modal particles as grammatical elements. In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (Studies in Pragmatics 1), 403–25. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dostie, Gaétane. 2009. Discourse markers and regional variation in French: A lexico-semantic approach. In Kate Beeching, Nigel Armstrong & Françoise Gadet (eds.), Sociolinguistic variation in contemporary French, 201–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 2007. The stance triangle. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erman, Britt & Ulla-Britt Kotsinas. 1993. Pragmaticalization: The case of ba’ and you know. Studier i Modernspråkvetenskap 101. 76–93.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1975a. Polarity and the scalar principle. Chicago Linguistic Society 111. 188–99.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1975b. Pragmatic scales and logical structure. Linguistic Inquiry 61. 353–75.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1978. Implication reversal in a natural language. In Franz Guenthner & Siegfried J. Schmidt (eds.), Formal semantics and pragmatics for Natural Languages, 289–301. Dordrecht: Reidel. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frank-Job, Barbara. 2006. A dynamic-interactional approach to discourse markers. In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles, 395–415. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6(2). 167–90.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gast, Volker & Johan van der Auwera. 2011. Scalar additive operators in the languages of Europe. Language 87(1). 2–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ham, Bora. 2011. A study on the modal particles of Korean. Seoul: Dongguk University MA thesis.
. 2018. A study on the topic in information structure of Korean. Seoul: Dongguk University Ph.D. dissertation.
Han, Ju-hee. 2022. pocosa ya-wa yenkyel emi ya-uy kinung-kwa thongsicek pyenhwa [The function of auxiliary postpositional particle and connective ending, with the diachronic change], Emwunyenkwu 1121. 65–82.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Gunther Kaltenböck, Tania Kuteva & Haiping Long. 2017. Cooptation as a discourse strategy. Linguistics 55(4). 813–855. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2021. The rise of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hong, Jongseong. 1983. myengsahwa emiuy pyenchen [Historical change of nominalizers]. The Korean Language and Literature (Kwuke Kwukmwunhak) 891. 31–52.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hong, Sungwan. 2002. Kwuke Thukswu Cosa Sinyenkwu [New study on Korean special particles]. Seoul: Yeklak.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. 11, 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003 [1993]. Grammaticalization. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Israel, Michael. 1996. The way constructions grow. In Adele Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language, 217–230. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. The pragmatics of polarity. In Laurence R. Horn & Gregory L. Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 701–723. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jeon, Hyemin. 2021. A study on focus particle constructions in Korean. Seoul: Yonsei University Ph.D. dissertation.
Kim, Mary Shin. 2013. Answering questions about the unquestionable in Korean conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 571. 138–157. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, Minju. 2011. Grammaticalization in Korean: The evolution of the existential verb. London: Saffron Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. From choice to counter-expectation: Semantic-pragmatic connections of the Korean disjunctive, concessive, and scalar focus particle -na. Journal of Pragmatics 801. 1–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2025. Secondary grammaticalization and subjectification: A case study of Korean conditional, concessive, and deontic modal eya. Journal of Pragmatics 2381. 86–100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, Minsoo. 2022. Semantics and pragmatics of ‘bojosa’ i)ya. Hanmal Yenkwu 63(24). 1–18.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 1989. On the historical development of focus particles. In Harald Weydt (ed.), Sprechen mit Partikeln, 318–329. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1991. The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koo, Hyangmi. 2012. On grammaticalization of ‘-kinun’ construction in Korean. Discourse and Cognition 19(3). 1–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William A. 1979. Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. Austin: University of Texas at Austin Ph.D. dissertation.
Lee, Ji Young. 2007. yenkyelemi ciman-uy hyengseng kwaceng-eytayhan caykochal [The diachronic study of connective ending -chiman], Taetongmwunhwa yenkwu 571: 319–351.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, Keehyung. 1993. A Korean grammar on semantic-pragmatic principles. Seoul: HankwukMunhwasa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2004. Theory and method in grammaticalization. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 32 (2). 152–187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015 [1995]. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lim, Dongsik. 2015. Semantics of focus particles in Korean. Journal of Korean Linguistics (Kwukehak) 731. 335–373.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, Samuel. 1992. A reference grammar of Korean. Rutland: Charles E. Tuttle.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Park, Chansoo. 2017. Demarcating the border between information units in Korea. Eoneohag 781. 131–163.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Park, Minju. 2023. Mwe-l: Its grammatical development and interpretation as surprisal/disapproval. Studies in Modern Grammar [Hyentay Mwunpepyenkwu] 1181. 1–17. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. Maxwell & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action, 57–10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prévost, Sophie. 2011. A propos from verbal complement to discourse marker: a case of grammaticalization? Linguistics 49(2). 391–413. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha. 1996. Semantics of verbs and grammaticalization: The development in Korean from a cross-linguistic perspective. Seoul: Hankwuk Mwunhwasa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 5). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence. 1985. Common Discourse Particles in English Conversation. New York: Garland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2008. Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(1). 31–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2022. The book of answers: Alignment, autonomy, and affiliation in social interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve E. 1988. Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 389–405. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic effects of grammaticalization. In Winfred Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel (eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics, 245–271. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65(1). 31–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalization. In Dieter Stein & Susan Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectification, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1997[1995]. The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at ICHL XII, Manchester. 13–18 August 1995.
. 2003. From subjectification to intersubjectification. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), Motives for language change, 124–139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Revisiting subjectification and intersubjectification. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization, 29–70. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Intersubjectification and clause periphery. In Lieselotte Brems, Lobke Ghesquière & Freek Van de Velde (eds.), Intersubjectivity and intersubjectification in grammar and discourse: Theoretical and descriptive advances 651, 7–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. On the rise of types of clause-final pragmatic markers in English. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 171. 26–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2022. Discourse structuring markers in English: A historical constructionalist perspective on pragmatics (Constructional Approaches to Language, 33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2021. Rethinking constructionalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Bogaert, Julie. 2011. I think and other complement-taking mental predicates: A case of and for constructional grammaticalization. Linguistics 49(2). 295–332. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Waltereit, Richard. 2002. Imperatives, interruption in conversation and the rise of discourse markers: A study of Italian guarda. Linguistics 40(5). 987–1010. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yang, Iksoo. 1973. Semantics of delimiters. Language Research (Ehak Yenkwu) 9(2). 84–122.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue