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:

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

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 PhD in Applied Linguistics from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). His research interests are in sequential and membership categorization analysis of interactional and grammatical practices in Korean and English.

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.- hyun. (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