In:Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-initial particles across languages
Edited by John Heritage and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 31] 2018
► pp. 97–118
Chapter 4Two types of trouble with questions
A comparative perspective on turn-initial particles in Korean
Published online: 19 July 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.04kim
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.04kim
Abstract
Most previous studies of Korean conversation have focused on clause-
or sentence-final elements to describe various interactional
strategies of conversationalists. This chapter demonstrates that the
beginnings of a turn in Korean are also an interactionally important
place, and provides a comparative analysis of two turn-initial
particles used in responses to questions: kulssey
and kulenikka. Both particles can be translated as
well in the target sequential position and
index that there is some trouble with the question. However, each
particle is used for addressing a particular type of trouble with
the preceding question and for indexing a specific upcoming action.
This chapter includes an account for how the particles may have
acquired these functions, and a brief comparison of the particles to
the comparable English particle well.
Keywords: comparative perspective, Korean,
kulenikka
,
kulssey
, questions, responses, trouble, turn-initial particles,
well
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Constraints on question
- 3.Two turn-initial particles at response beginnings
- 3.1 Kulssey: Indexing uncertainty
- 3.2 Kulenikka: Reshaping the constraints imposed by the question
- 4.Comparing the two particles
- 5.Comparing the particles to well
- 6.Conclusions
Acknowledgements Notes References
References (43)
Boyd, Elizabeth, and John Heritage. 2006. “Taking The Patientʹs Medical History: Questioning
During Comprehensive History Taking” In Communication in Medical Care: Interactions between
Primary Care Physicians and Patients, ed. by John Heritage, and Douglas Maynard, 151–184. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clayman, Steven, and John Heritage. 2002. The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on
the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Golato, Andrea, and Zsuzsanna Fagyal. 2008. “Comparing Single and Double Sayings of the German
Response Token Ja and the Role of Prosody: A Conversation
Analytic Perspective.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41 (3):1–30.
Hayashi, Makoto, and Shuya Kushida. 2010. “Responding with Resistance to Wh-Questions in
Japanese Talk-in-interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 46 (3):231–255.
Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive Forces and
Grammaticalization. New York: Oxford University Press.
Heritage, John. 1984. “A Change of State Token and Aspects of Its
Sequential Placement. In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation
Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
. 1988. “Explanations as Accounts: A Conversation Analytic
Perspective.” In Analyzing Lay Explanation: A Case Book of
Methods, ed. by C. Antaki, 127–144. London, Sage.
, 2002a. “Oh-Prefaced Responses to Assessments: A Method of
Modifying and Agreement/Disagreement.” In The Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Cecilia Ford, Barbara Fox, and Sandra Thompson, 196–224. New York: Oxford University Press.
. 2002b. “Ad Hoc Inquiries: Two Preferences in the Design
of Routine Questions in an Open Context.” In Standardization and Tacit Knowledge: Interaction and
Practice in the Survey Interview, ed. by Douglas Maynard, Hanneke Houtkoop-Steenstra, Nora Cate Schaeffer, and Johannes Van der Zouwen, 313–334. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
. 2010. “Questioning in Medicine.” In “Why Do You Ask?”: The functions of Questions in
Institutional Discourse, ed. by Alice F. Freed, and Susan Ehrlich, 42–68. New York: Oxford University Press.
, 2012. “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and
Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (1):1–29.
. 2015. “Well-Prefaced Turns in English Conversation: A
Conversation Analytic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 88: 88–104.
Heritage, John, and Steve Clayman. 2010. Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and
Institutions. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Keevallik, Leelo. 2011. “The Terms of Not Knowing.” In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers, Lorena Mondada, and Jacob Steensig, 184–206, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Kim, Hye Ri Stephanie. 2010. “A High Boundary Tone as a Resource for a Social
Action: The Korean Sentence-Ender –Ta.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (11):3055–3077.
Kim, Mary Shin. 2011. Negotiating epistemic Rights to Information in Korean Conversation: An examination of the Korean Evidential Marker –Tamye. Discourse Studies 13(4): 435–459.
Kim, Hye Ri Stephanie. 2013. “Reshaping the Response Space with ‘Kulenikka’ in
Beginning to Respond to Questions in Korean
Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 57:303–317.
Kim, Hye Ri Stephanie, and Satomi Kuroshima. 2013. “Turn Beginnings in Interaction: An
Introduction.” Journal of Pragmatics 57: 267–273.
Kim, Kyu-Hyun, and Kyung-Hee Suh. 1994. “The Discourse Connective Nikka
in Korean Conversation.” In Japanese/Korean Linguistics Vol. 4, ed. by Noriko Akatsuka, 113–129. Stanford: CSLI.
. 1996. “Dealing with Prior Talk: Discourse Connectives in
Korean Conversation.” In Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Vol. 5, ed. by Noriko Akatsuka, Shoichi Iwasaki, and Susan Strauss, 83–99. Stanford: CSLI.
. 2010. “’Ketun’ in Conversation: Soliciting News Receipt
as Sequentially-Motivated Action.” In Japanese-Korean Linguistics, Vol. 17, ed. by Shoichi Iwasaki, Hajime Hoji, Patricia M. Clancy, and Sung-Ock Sohn, 423–438. Stanford: CSLI.
Kim, Mary Shin. 2005. “Evidentiality in Achieving Entitlement,
Objectivity, and Detachment in Korean
Conversation.” Discourse Studies 7 (1):87–108.
Kim, Stephanie Hyeri. 2015. “Resisting the Terms of Polar Questions through
Ani (‘No’)-Prefacing in Korean Conversation.” Discourse Processes 52 (4):311–334.
. 2016. “When Speakers Account for Their Questions:
Ani-Prefaced Accounts in Korean Conversation.” In Accountability in Social Interaction, ed. by Jeffrey Robinson. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lee, Seung-Hee. 2015. “Two Forms of Affirmative Responses to Polar
Questions.” Discourse Processes 52 (1):21–46.
Noh, Jini. 2009. “The Deployment of Korean Negative Interrogatives
in Conversational Discourse: A Sign-Based
Approach.” In Japanese/Korean Linguistics Vol. 16, ed. by Yukinori Takubo, Tomohide Kinuhata, Szymon Grzelak, and Kayo Nagai, 304–318. Stanford: CSLI.
Oh, Sun-Young. 2007. “Overt Reference to Speaker and Recipient in
Korean.” Discourse Studies 9 (4):462–492.
Park, Yong-Yae. 1999. “The Korean Connective Nuntey in Conversational Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics, 31: 191–218.
Park, Jiseon. 2009. “Pre-verbal Negation Yes/No Question-Answer
Sequence in Conversation: Action Formation and Sequence
Organization.” Linguistics [enehak] 30:75–105.
Park, Mee-jeong, and Sung-Ock Sohn. 2002. “Discourse, Grammaticalization, and Intonation:
The Analysis of- Ketun in Korean.” In Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Vol. 10, ed. by Noriko Akatsuka, and Susan Strauss, 306–319. Stanford: CSLI.
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some
Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn
Shapes.” In Structures of Social Action, ed. by John Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2010. “Grammar and Social Relations: Alternative Forms
of Yes/No Type Initiating Actions in Health Visitor
Interaction.” In “Why Do You Ask?”: The Function of Questions in
Institutional Discourse, ed. by Alice F. Freed, and Susan Ehrlich, 87–107. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sacks, Harvey. 1987. “On the Preference for Agreement and Contiguity in
Sequences in Conversation.” In Talk and Social Organisation, ed. by Graham Button, and John R. E. Lee, 54–69. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Schegloff, Emanuel. 1987. “Recycled Turn Beginnings: A Precise Repair
Mechanism In Conversationʹs Turn-Taking
Organization.” In Talk and Social Organisation, ed. by Graham Button, and John R. E. Lee, 70–85. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
. 1996. “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar
and Interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Gene H. Lerner. 2009. “Beginning to Respond: “Well”-Prefaced Responses
to Wh-Questions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 42 (2):91–115.
Cited by (5)
Cited by five other publications
Bolden, Galina B., John Heritage & Marja-Leena Sorjonen
2023. Introduction. In Responding to Polar Questions across Languages and Contexts [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 35], ► pp. 1 ff.
Hayano, Kaoru & Makoto Hayashi
2023. Post-confirmation modifications. In Responding to Polar Questions across Languages and Contexts [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 35], ► pp. 272 ff.
Kim, Stephanie Hyeri
Kim, Stephanie Hyeri & Mary Shin Kim
2020. Requesting here-and-now actions with two imperative formats in Korean
interaction. In Mobilizing others [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 33], ► pp. 19 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 december 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.
