The story of two connectives
Korean tunci ‘or’ and kena ‘or
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 5965533 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Minju Kim (0000-0002-3097-2164, Claremont McKenna College, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2021 |
| Volume | 23 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 497-518 |
| Publication date | 2021-08-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Discourse Studies (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1461-4456 • E-ISSN: 1461-7080 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/14614456211001602 |
| OpenAlex | W3137812339 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 13 |
Using 129 natural conversations and 185 episodes of television drama conversations as well as the theoretical frameworks of usage-based theory and grammaticalization, I investigate two forms of ‘or’ in Korean, tunci and kena. Generally believed to be largely interchangeable, these two forms’ actual usages have never been compared. I demonstrate that the two are selectively used in conversation, and propose that three types of factor influence the selection. The first factors are genre and setting. In formal settings and formal descriptive writing, kena is preferred. The second factor is the presence of negative markers: while 43% of kena tokens were used in negative sentences, only one token of tunci was. The third factor is the distinction between ‘propositive’ tunci and ‘descriptive’ kena. In conversation, tunci occurs mainly in making suggestions and presenting plans, and hence is oriented toward the future tense and the irrealis domain. Kena occurs mainly in describing present and past situations, facts, or premises, and hence is oriented toward the present and past tense and the realis domain. This study confirms the usage-based theory’s argument that speakers possess extensive procedural knowledge of language: Korean speakers may not be conscious of it, but they differentiate tunci and kena with high regularity. Lastly, I explain their differences based on their history. The older form, kena, dates back to the 8th century, whereas tunci became widespread only in the 19th century. Because tunci retains its original semantics of probability, tunci tends to occur in presenting suggestions and plans (irrealis) and not in factual descriptions
Conversation · Grammaticalization · Linguistics · Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies · Language, Metaphor, and Cognition · Philosophy · Psychology · Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language
Grammaticalization
Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure
Pragmatic Competence
On some principles of grammaticization
The irreality of alternatives
What does grammar tell us about action
A Reference Grammar of Korean
From Usage to Grammar
From choice to counter-expectation
From connective to final particle
A Usage-based Approach to Spanish Verbs of 'Becoming
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,75 |
| Citation span | 2022 - 2026 (5) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 2 |