Self-repair in Korean conversation
Initiating repair in “post-position” as practice for managing face and social relationships
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/eap.27378Keywords:
conversation analysis, Korean, self-initiated self-repair, morphological repair, post-positional repair, suffix, normative, face, solidaryAbstract
This paper analyses the practice of self-initiated (same-turn) self-repair in Korean conversation, from a conversation-analytic perspective, with the focus on “post-positionally” conducted morphological repair. Korean is a predicate-final language with an agglutinative system, where a case marker or a sentence-ending suffix post-positionally marking the root (e.g., noun or verb stem) may become a repairable, being replaced by another, rearticulated, or even suppressed or blurred (in the case of turn-finally occurring repair). The analysis suggests that post-positional repair of the root or suffixes (e.g., sentence-ending suffixes or turn-final clausal connectives) embodies the repairer’s orientation towards rendering the action more “normatively appropriate” in a way that is more recipient-designed, face-sensitive, or solidary. Explicating the reflexive relationship between the repairable and the repair solution is shown to be a useful comparative-analytic practice, illuminating the way post-positional morphosyntactic elements in Korean are deployed as paradigmatically related interactional resources managing action, face and relationships
References
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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
Curl, T. S., & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(2), 129–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802028613
Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139–182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du
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. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511757464.003
Edwards, D. (2000). Extreme case formulations: Softeners, investment, and doing nonliteral. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(4), 347–373. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_01
Fitzgerald, R., & Housley, W. (2015). Advances in membership categorization analysis. New York: Sage.
Fox, B. A., Wouk, F., Fincke, S., Flores, W. H., Hayashi, M., Laakso, M., Maschler, Y., Mehrabi, A., Sorjonen, M.-J., Uhmann, S., & Yang, H.-J. (2017). Morphological self-repair: Self-repair within the word. Studies in Language, 41(3), 638–659. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.41.3.04fox
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interactional ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Random House.
Goffman, E. (1979). Footing. Semiotica, 25(1–2), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1979.25.1-2.1
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hayano, K. (2016). Subjective assessments: Managing territories of experience in conversation. In J. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in social interaction (pp. 207–236). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210557.003.0007
Heritage, J. (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27(3), 291–334. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500019990
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., & 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
Hester, S., & Eglin, P. (1997). Culture in action: Studies in membership categorization analysis. University Press of America.
Jefferson, G. (1988). On the sequential organization of trouble-talk in ordinary conversation. Social Problems, 35(4), 418–441. https://doi.org/10.2307/800595
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
Kim, K.-H. (2022). Syllabically matched resonance in sound and category: An excursion into the poetics of ordinary talk in Korean. East Asian Pragmatics, 7(3), 459–493. https://doi.org/10.1558/eap.23404
Kim, K.-H. (2023). Negatively-formatted requests for confirmation in Korean conversation: Three types of verbal negation as interactional resources. Contrastive Pragmatics, 2023, 1–50. https://doi.org/10.1163/26660393-bja10079
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, M.-J. (2018). Repair and assessment types in advanced Korean language learners’ Korean and English speeches. Senkyowasinhak [Missionary and Theology], 46, 177–207. https://doi.org/10.17778/MAT.2018.10.46.177
Kwon, H.-J., Rim, S.-E., & Kim, K.-H. (2021). Formulating WH-questions in Korean adult-child conversation: “Subject”, “topic”, and “zero” particle as interactional resources. Journal of Pragmatics, 180, 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.04.026
Lee, H.-S. (1991). Tense, aspect, and modality: A discourse-pragmatic analysis of verbal affixes in Korean from a typological perspective (PhD dissertation). Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles.
Lee, H.-S. (1999). Discourse-pragmatics of the Korean connective -nunte/(u)nte: A case of grammaticalization of figure-ground relations (Unpublished manuscript). Potsdam.
Lerner, G. H. (1996). Finding “face” in the preference structures of talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59(4), 303–321. https://doi.org/10.2307/2787073
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
Oh, S.-Y. (2010). Invoking categories through co-present person reference: The case of Korean conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(5), 1219–1242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.019
Park, J.-E. (2018). Replacing to supplement: The case of Korean conversation. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 199–222. https://doi.org/10.17154/kjal.2018.3.34.1.199
Park, Y.-Y. (1998). A discourse analysis of the Korean connective ketun in conversation. Crossroads of Language, Interaction, and Culture, 1, 71–89.
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
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. M. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9(2–3). 219–229. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20008968
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (Vols. 1 & 2). London: 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/10.2307/412243
Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1295–1345. https://doi.org/10.1086/229903
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (2013). Ten operations in self-initiated, same-turn repair. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding (pp. 41–70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511757464.002
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. https://doi.org/10.2307/413107
Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
Wiggins, S., & Potter, J. (2003). Attitudes and evaluative practices: Category vs. item and subjective vs. objective constructions in everyday food assessments. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42(4), 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466603322595257
Yeon, J, & Brown, L. (2011). Korean: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.
