Enhancing solidarity through dispreferred format

The nuntey-clause in Korean conversation as a normative basis for leveraging action

Authors

  • Kyu-Hyun Kim Kyung Hee University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/eap.34742

Keywords:

nintey-clause, my-side-revealing, espace trajectory, normative, solitarity, Korean

Abstract

The Korean clausal-connective nuntey, a particle indicating ‘background’, is analysed in terms of the ‘my-side-revealing’ practice that projects ‘escape trajectories’ in which an incipiently formulated action is foreshown to be retractable. For instance, in response to an offer, incipient non-compliance, marked by nuntey, may be leveraged into acceptance; here, the speaker emerges as a ‘markedly self-sufficient’ beneficiary who ostensibly orients to minimising the cost of burden on the part of the offer-maker. The offer-maker, on his/her part, emerges as a ‘markedly other-attentive’ benefactor through deferentially overriding the recipient’s nuntey-marked account adumbrating a dispreferred response. Across different contexts, the nuntey-marked response, with its expansion-relevant character, embodies the speaker’s normative orientation, furnishing the opportunity for the participants to manage face, morality, and solidary relationships. Cross-linguistic implications are noted with reference to the self-indulgent practice of ‘distancing’, with the hearer being mobilised as a co-member to accountably co-leverage the current action with upgraded affiliation.

Author Biography

Kyu-Hyun Kim, Kyung Hee University

Kyu-hyun Kim is Professor of English at Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea. He received a Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). He has conducted conversation-analytic research on various aspects of the English and Korean grammar and interaction.

References

Antaki, C. (1994). Explaining and arguing: The social organization of accounts. London: Sage.

Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1984). Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chang, K.-H. (1995). ‘-nuntey’-lo phyohyen-toy-nun paykyeng-kwa mosup kwankye-uy thukseng (Features of the figure-ground relationship expressed by -nuntey). Hanyang Emwun, 13, 1103–1122.

Choy, H.-P. (1965). Wuli malpon (Korean grammar). Seoul: Cengumsa.

Clayman, S. E. (2002). Sequence and solidarity. In S. R. Thye & E. J. Lawler (Eds.), Group cohesion, trust and solidarity (Vol. 19, pp. 229–253). New York: Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0882-6145(02)19009-6

Clayman, S. E., & Heritage, J. (2014). Benefactors and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests. In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Requesting in social interaction (pp. 55–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.26.03cla

Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Thompson, S. (2005). A linguistic practice for retracting overstatements: Concessive repair. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction (pp. 257–288). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17.14cou

Drew, P. (1987). Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics, 25(1), 219–253. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.219

Drew, P., Walker, T., & Ogden, R. (2013). Self-repair and action construction. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding (pp. 71–94). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Edwards, D. (1994). Script formulations: An analysis of event descriptions in conversation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13(3), 211–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X94133001

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face to face behavior. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York: Harper and Row.

Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Goodwin, C. (2003). Embedded context. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(4), 323–350. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3604_2

Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heinemann, T. (1999). Two answers to inapposite inquiries. In J. Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspective (pp. 159–186). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heritage, J. (1987). Ethnomethodology. In A. Giddens & J. Turner (Eds.), Social theory today (pp. 224–272). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Heritage, J. (1988). Explanations as accounts: A conversation analytic perspective. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Analyzing lay explanation: A case book of methods (pp. 127–144). London: Sage.

Heritage, J. (2002). The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(10–11), 1427–1446. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00072-3

Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. E. (2012). Melvin Pollner: A view from the suburbs. The American Sociologist, 43(1), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-012-9148-3

Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103

Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2012). Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In J. P. de Ruiter (Ed.), Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives (pp. 179–192). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139045414.013

Hewitt J., & Stokes, R. (1975). Disclaimers. American Sociological Review, 40(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094442

Holt, E. (2007). ‘I’m eyeing your chop up mind’: Reporting and enacting. In E. Holt & R. Clift (Eds.), Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction (pp. 47–80). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations of sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Jefferson, G. (1985). On the interactional unpackaging of a ‘gloss’. Language in Society, 14(4), 435–466. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500011465

Jefferson, G. (2004). ‘At first I thought’: A normalizing device for extraordinary events. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 131–170). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.09jef

Jeon, Y.-O., & Nam, K.-I. (2005). Kwue-wa mwune-uy cepsok phyohyen pikyo yenkwu (A comparative study of conjunctions in spoken and written Korean). Hanmal Yenkwu, 17, 169–194.

Jucker, A. H., Smith S. W., & Ludge, T. (2003). Interactive aspects of vagueness in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(12) 1737–1769. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00188-1

Kim, H.-R. S. (2013). Ani ‘No’-prefaced responses to Wh-questions as challenges in Korean conversation. In P. Sells & B. Frellesuig (Eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics (Vol. 20, pp. 383–398). Stanford: CSLI.

Kim, H.-R. S. (2015). Resisting the terms of polar questions through Ani (‘No’)-prefacing in Korean conversation. Discourse Processes, 52(4), 311–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.954950

Kim, H.-R. S. (2016). When speakers account for their questions: Ani-prefaced accounts in Korean conversation. In J. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in social interaction (pp. 294–320). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210557.003.0010

Kim, H.-Y. (1997). Turn-taking and verbal affixes in Korean conversation. Language Research, 33(4), 601–627.

Kim, K.-H. (2007). The Korean topic marker -nun revisited: -nun as a tying device. In N. H. McGloin & J. Mori (Eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics (Vol. 15, pp. 81–92). Stanford: CSLI.

Kim, K.-H., & Suh, K.-H. (2010). The sentence-ending suffix -ketun in Korean conversation with reference to-nuntey: Sequence organization and management of epistemic rights. Discourse and Cognition, 17(3), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.15718/discog.2010.17.3.1

Kim, K.-H., & Suh, K.-H. (2014). Invoking domain discrepancy as leveraging practice: An analysis of the Korean connective -nuntey from a comparative perspective. Paper presented at the 4th Meeting of the Language and Social Interaction Working Group (LANSI). Columbia University, New York, USA.

Kim, K.-H., & Suh, K.-H. (2015). The nuntey-clause in Korean conversation: Evaluative self-reflective talk to be affiliated with and leveraged. Paper presented at the 2015 Culture, Language and Social Practice Conference: CLASP IV. University of Colorado, Boulder, USA.

Kim, Y.-H. (2009). The Korean discourse markers -nuntey and kuntey in native–non-native conversation: An acquisitional perspective. In H. Nguyen & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual perspectives (pp. 317–350). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, National Foreign Language Resource Center.

Kim, Y.-S. (1981). Yenkyel emi ‘-nuntey’-ey tayhaye (About the connective ‘nuntey’). Paytalmal, 6, 269–291.

Lee, C.-D. (1994). ‘-nuntey’-uy kinung-kwa yongpep (The functions and uses of ‘nuntey’). Theyksutu Enehak (Text Linguistics), 2, 239–259.

Lee, H. S. (1991). Tense, aspect, and modality: A discourse-pragmatic analysis of verbal affixes in Korean from a typological perspective (PhD dissertation). University of California at Los Angeles.

Lee, H. S. (1999a). A discourse-pragmatic analysis of the committal -ci in Korean: A synthetic approach to the form–meaning relation. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(2), 243–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00066-6

Lee, H. S. (1999b). Discourse-pragmatics of the Korean connective -nunte/(u)nte: A case of grammaticalization of figure-ground relations (Unpublished manuscript). Potsdam.

Lee, K.-D. (1980). The pragmatic function of the connective nuntey. Ene (Language), 5(1), 119–135.

Lee, S.-H. (2016). Epistemic asymmetry and accountability in service interaction. In J. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in social interaction (pp. 175–206). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210557.003.0006

Lerner, G. H. (2013). On the place of hesitating in delicate formulations: A turn-constructional infrastructure for collaborative indiscretion. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding (pp. 95–134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Maynard, D. W. (2013). Defensive mechanisms: I-mean-prefaced utterances in complaint and other conversational sequences. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding (pp. 198–233). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mori, J. (1999). ‘Well I may be exaggerating but …’: Self-qualifying clauses in negotiation of opinions among Japanese speakers. Human Studies, 22(2–4), 447–473. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005440010221

Park, C.-H. (1964). Hankwuke kwucho-lon yenkwu (Theory of the structure of Korean). Seoul: Yonsei University Press.

Park, C.-H., & Pak K.-D. (1979). Korean 1: An intensive course. Seoul: Yonsei University Press.

Park, Y.-Y. (1998). A discourse analysis of the Korean connective ketun in conversation. Crossroads of Language, Interaction, and Culture, 1, 71–79.

Park, Y.-Y. (1999). The Korean connective nuntey in conversational discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(2), 191–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00060-5

Pollner, M. (1974). Mundane reasoning. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 4(1), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/004839317400400103

Pomerantz, A. (1980). Telling my side: ‘Limited access’ as a ‘fishing’ device. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3–4), 186–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00020.x

Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57-101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pomerantz, A. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9(2–3), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148128

Raymond, C. W., & Stivers, T. (2016). The omnirelevance of accountability: Off-record account solicitations. In J. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in social interaction (pp. 321–353). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210557.003.0011

Robinson, J. D. (2016). Accountability in social interaction. In J. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in social interaction (pp. 1–44). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210557.001.0001

Robinson, J. D., & Bolden, G. (2010). Preference organization of sequence-initiating actions: The case of explicit account solicitations. Discourse Studies, 12(4), 501–533. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610371051

Sacks, H. (1972). On the analyzability of stories by children. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics (pp. 325–345). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Sacks, H. (1984). On doing ‘being ordinary’. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 413–429). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sacks, H. (1992a). Lectures on conversation (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Blackwell.

Sacks, H. (1992b). Lectures on conversation (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Blackwell.

Sacks, H, Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010

Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organization: One interaction of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002

Schegloff, E. A. (1998). Body torque. Social Research, 65(3), 535–596.

Schegloff, E. A. (2000). On granularity. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 715–720. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.715

Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208

Selting, M., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (Eds.). (2001). Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10

Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Smith, S, M. (2013). ‘I thought’ initiated turns: Addressing discrepancies in firsthand and second-hand knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 318–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.006

Stivers, T., Mondada, L., & Steensig, J. (Eds.). (2011). The morality of knowledge in conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674

Stokoe, E., & Edwards, D. (2008). ‘Did you have permission to smash your neighbour’s door?’: Silly questions and their answers in police–suspect interrogations. Discourse Studies, 10(1), 89–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607085592

Suh, J.-S. (1994). Kwuke mwunpep (The Korean grammar). Seoul: Ppwulikiphunnamwu.

Tanaka, H. (1999). Turn-taking in Japanese conversation: A study in grammar and interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Tanaka, H. (2000). Turn projection in Japanese talk-in-interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3301_1

Walker, T., & Drew, P. (2011). Responding indirectly. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(9), 2434–2451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.02.012

Published

2018-04-17

How to Cite

Kim, K.-H. (2018). Enhancing solidarity through dispreferred format: The nuntey-clause in Korean conversation as a normative basis for leveraging action. East Asian Pragmatics, 3(1), 27-57. https://doi.org/10.1558/eap.34742