A response token as an interactional resource for topic closing in Korean conversation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/eap.17828Keywords:
response tokens, topic closing, Conversation Analysis, Korean conversation, sentence-ending suffixesAbstract
This study investigates the discourse and sequential roles of the response token kuleh-kwuna (‘I see’) in ordinary Korean conversation using the conversation analytic (CA) approach. Regarding closing sequences in English conversation, studies have shown less-abrupt ways of closing a topic by using figurative expressions, response tokens indicating shift-implicativeness and assessment (Beach, 1993; Drew & Holt, 1998; Goodwin & Goodwin,1992; Jefferson, 1984). In line with these studies on closing sequences, and furthering the previous studies of the sentence-ending suffix-kwuna, this article argues that Korean speakers often use the response token kuleh-kwuna as a resource to close a topic of conversation less abruptly. A speaker’s complete understanding of the received information and the implication of not needing further information indexed by kuleh-kwuna provide a suitable environment in which speakers can move on to the next sequence of a conversation.
References
Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (1984). Structures of social action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beach, W. (1993). Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “Okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics, 19(4), 325–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90092-4
Clayman, S., & Heritage, J. (2015). Lecture: Response tokens [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from University of California, Los Angeles CCLE: http://ccle.ucla.edu
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2004). Prosody and sequence organization in English conversation: The case of new beginnings. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. E. Ford (Eds.), Sound patterns in interaction: Cross-linguistic studies from conversation (pp. 335–376). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.62.17cou
Drew, P., & Holt, E. (1998). Figures of speech: Figurative expressions and the management of topic transition in conversation. Language in Society, 27(4), 495–522. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500020200
Gardner, R. (2001). When listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.92
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1992). Assessments and the construction of context. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 151–189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ha, K. (2018). The social actions of the sentence-ending suffixes -ney, -ci, and -kwuna in Korean conversation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles.
Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structure of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.020
Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in action: Interactions, identities, and institutions. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444318135
Jefferson, G. (1984). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 191–222). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.014
Jun, S.-A. (2000). K-ToBI (Korean ToBI) labeling conventions: Version 3.1. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 99, 149–173.
Kim, H.-R. S. (2010). A high boundary tone as a resource for a social action: The Korean sentence-ender–ta. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(11), 3055–3077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.022
Kim, K.-H. (2004). A conversation analysis of Korean sentence-ending modal suffixes -ney, -kwun(a), and -ta: Noticing as a social action. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea, 12(1), 1–26.
Lee, H. S. (1991). Tense, aspect, and modality: A discourse pragmatic analysis of verbal affixes in Korean from a typological perspective (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles.
Lee, H. S. (1993). Cognitive constraints on expressing newly perceived information, with reference to epistemic modal suffixes in Korean. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(2), 135–167. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.2.135
Local, J. (1992). Continuing and restarting. In P. Auer & A. Di Luzio (Eds.), The contextualization of language (pp. 273–296). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.22.18loc
Müller, F. E. (1996). Affiliating and disaffiliating with continuers: Prosodic aspects of recipiency. Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics, 12, 131–176.
Oh, S. (2005). Kamthansa [Exclamation]. Say Kwuke Saynghwal, 15(2), 153–161.
Park, M.-J. (2003). The meaning of Korean prosodic boundary tones (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Department of Applied Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles.
Park, M.-J., & Sohn, S.-O. (2002). Discourse, grammaticalization, and intonation: The analysis of -ketun in Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 10, 306–319.
Reed, B. S. (2009). Prosodic orientation: A practice for sequence organization in broadcast telephone openings. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(6), 1223–1247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.009
Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk. Georgetown University roundtable on languages and linguistics (pp. 71–93). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1986). The routine as achievement. Human Studies, 9, 111–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148124
Schegloff, E. A. (1992). On talk and its institutional occasions. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 101–134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199772810-0062
Sohn, H. (1999). The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sohn, S.-O., & Kim, S. H. (2014). The interplay of discourse and prosody at the left and right periphery in Korean: An analysis of kuntey ‘but’. In K. Beeching & U. Detges (Eds.), Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change (pp. 221–249). Leiden: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004274822_010
Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903471258
Strauss, S. G. (2005). Cognitive realization markers in Korean: A discourse-pragmatic study of the sentence-ending particles –kwun, –ney and –tela. Language Sciences, 27(4), 437–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2004.09.014
Turner, K. (1999). Functional variation of okay/alright usage in spoken discourse. Special Project, University of New South Wales, Semester 2.
Zimmerman, D. H. (1984). Talk and its occasion: The case of calling the police. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, form and use in context: Linguistic applications (pp. 210–228). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Zimmerman, D. H. (1992). Achieving context: Openings in emergency calls. In G. Watson & R. M. Seller (Eds.), Text in context: Contributions to ethnomethodology (pp. 35–51). London: Sage Publications.
