Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics (original) (raw)

The degree of transitivity in Korean: a functional-typological approach

Language Research, 1993

(1) a. kil-ul ket-ta. road-Acc walk-Dec. "to walk the street" b. san-ul ollaka-ta mountain-Ace climlr-Dec. "to climb the mountain" * Yale romanization has been adopted for transcribing Korean examples in this paper. The following abbreviations have been used to label grammatical morphemes in the glosses below Korean example sentences:

Korean: Some sociolinguistic characteristics

1. Introduction 1.1. Number and location of speakers 1.2. Area and population 2. Writing system and romanization 2.1. History 2.2. Consonants 2.2.1. Basic consonant symbols 2.2.2. Modified consonant symbols 2.3. Vowels 2.3.1. Basic vowel symbols 2.3.2. Modified vowel symbols 2.4. Syllable structure 2.5. Romanization systems 2.5.1. Proper nouns 2.5.2. Place names 3. Geographic variation 3.1. Names for Korea(n) 3.2. Dialects 3.3. North vs. South Korean 4. Language contact 4.1. Chinese and Japanese 4.2. Western languages 5. Cultural aspects of language use: honorification 5.1. Pronouns 5.2. Titles 5.3. Speech styles 5.4. Lexicon

Korean Language in Culture and Society, Edited by Ho-min Sohn

Journal of Sociolinguistics, 2007

Reviewed by LUCY JONES Discourse and Identity is a monograph aimed at scholars and students interested in identity and its relationship to language. An introduction to theories and approaches, this book offers a guide to the field via existing data and analyses and is designed to be a valuable resource and reference for scholars in this area. The book aims to introduce the study of identity as constructed in discourse across a variety of disciplines (including linguistics, psychology and cultural studies) and the authors offer case studies to support their overview of work in each area. Focusing primarily on methodology, the first half of the book considers interactional and ideological approaches to identity through the analysis of discourse extracts. Though confusing at times due to the huge variety of approaches covered, the authors impressively link together the array of interdisciplinary methods in order to set the foundation for the remainder of the book. The second half considers some literal and ideological contexts in which identity is constructed through discourse, at which point the foundation laid out by the opening chapters on methodology becomes clearer. In this sense, the second half of the book contextually applies the theory and method detailed in the first. To introduce the book, the authors use an illustrative stretch of discourse from British fashion show What Not to Wear (BBC Television), where the 'style gurus' from the programme explain how they can find their participant's 'true identity' by setting her up in the 'right' clothes. The brief analysis offered raises the issue of identity as stylistic practice (since it is apparent that the way in which we adorn ourselves is seen as an expression of our identity) yet it also demonstrates the assumptions of essentialism that underlie much of the work into identity to date. The concept of identity as constructed through style is a contemporary one, with scholars such as Irvine (2001) arguing that the meaning behind style is ideologically mediated and thus contextually specific. This approach demonstrates how style is used to construct fluid identities rather than it being a reflection of a 'true' or 'natural' self. This is in contrast to early variationist work in sociolinguistics which took the vernacular, or 'unconscious' speech as reflective of a fixed social identity. Approaches which consider discourse as the means by which identity is constituted rather than the place in which it is reflected have since come to fruition (cf. Eckert and Rickford 2001), and it is this constructionist stance which is articulated in the book's introduction.

Situational Meanings and Functions of Korean Speech Styles

Proquest Llc, 2010

This study aims to provide a perspective which allows honorifics to be seen beyond the frame of politeness and/or formality in social structures. Korean school grammar explains honorifics as linguistic forms that reflect relative social positional difference (e.g., K-H. Lee, 2010), and has assumed that social structure and language use have a static relationship. However, in actual conversation, the use of honorific styles is more dynamic and people strategically make use of honorific forms to regulate their interpersonal relationships, not always passively following social conventions.

The base of Korean noun paradigms: Evidence from tone

Korean Linguistics, 2014

This paper reports and analyzes the tonal patterns that emerge in South Kyengsang monosyllabic nouns that exhibit two well-known analogical changes in stem shape, one involving coronal obstruent codas and the other stems with an underlying cluster. By the first change, underlying and orthographic /nach/ ‘face’ inflects asnat̚,nach-ɨl(conservative) ornas-ɨl(innovative); and by the second underlying /talk/ ‘chicken’ inflects astak̚,talk-ɨl(conservative) ortak-ɨl(innovative). We find that many such nouns with a high-low tonal pattern change to high-high when inflected with the segmentally innovative stem. We propose that this tonal change supports the model of Korean noun paradigms proposed in Albright (2008) and Do (2013) in which the citation form serves as the base for the construction of the suffixed forms. If the base is a neutralization site, then learners select the alternant in which they have the greatest confidence of scoring a correct hit when undoing the neutralization.