Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 24, No. 0, pp.772-787
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2024
Received 11 Apr 2024 Revised 29 Apr 2024 Accepted 02 May 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.24..202408.772

Morpho-phonological Variation and Emotional Attitudes of Ideophones in Korean, Compared to English

Hee-Don Ahn ; Suwon Yoon
(First Author) Professor, Department of English Konkuk University 120 Neungdong-ro, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul 05029, Korea hdahn@konkuk.ac.kr
(Corresponding Author) Associate Professor, Department of English Language and Literature University of Seoul 163 Seoulsiripdaero, Dongdaemungu Seoul 02504, Korea, Tel: 02) 2173-3194 suwon@uos.ac.kr


© 2024 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

In this study, we examine the pragmatics and semantics surrounding emotive ideophones in Korean, compared to English, treating them as a subset of expressive elements, which are analyzed within the framework of conventional implicature (Potts 2005). By delving into the intricate connotational nuances present in both positive and negative variants of ideophones, we demonstrate how systematic phonetic and morphological alterations contribute to the generation of numerous derivations. A notable feature of Korean ideophones, distinct from English, lies in their ability to convey the speaker’s emotional stance—either positive or negative—through specific derivations of ideophonic terms, in addition to their inherent meaning pertaining to sound, shape, or movement. To elucidate the subtle emotional differences, a hybrid analysis of ideophones is proposed, situated at the intersection of pragmatics and semantics. This approach effectively captures the nuanced differences across a wide array of ideophonic variants. Through a meticulous examination of potential variants for ideophones, the study aims to unveil the systematic nature of expressive elements within our grammatical structure. Finally, the identification of yet another instance of expressive elements in language lends support to the concept of multidimensionality.

Keywords:

emotive ideophone, expressives, conventional implicature, Korean, English

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Basic Study and Interdisciplinary R&D Foundation Fund of the University of Seoul (2023) for Suwon Yoon.

References

  • Cruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Diffloth, G. 1994. i: big, a: small. In L. Hinton, J. Nichols, and J. J. Ohala, eds., Sound Symbolism, 107-114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511751806.008]
  • Giannakidou, A. and S. Yoon. 2011. The subjective mode of comparison: metalinguistic comparatives in Greek and Korean. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29(3), 621-655. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9133-5]
  • Giannakidou, A. and S. Yoon. 2009. Metalinguistic functions and the expressive dimension in Greek and Korean: Attitude semantics, expressive meaning and NPI licensing. In Proceedings of the 13th Sinn und Bedeutung, Stuttgart: Online Publikationsverbund der Universität Stuttgart (OPUS), 141-156.
  • Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, J. Morgan, eds., Syntax and semantics III: Speech acts, 41-58. New York: Academic Press. [https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003]
  • Gutzmann, D. 2011. Expressive modifiers and mixed expressives. In O. Bonami, O, Hofherr, eds., Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 7, Colloque de Syntaxe et Sematique de Paris, Paris, 123-141.
  • Gutzmann, D. and K. Turgay. 2012. Expressive intensifiers in German: syntaxsemantics mismatches. In C. Piñón, ed., Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9, 149-166.
  • Hinton, L., J. Nichols, and J. J. Ohala. 1994. Sound Symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511751806]
  • Jespersen, O. 1933. Symbolic value of the vowel i. In Linguistica. Selected Papers in English, French and German, 283-303. Copenhagen: Levin and Munksgaard.
  • Karttunen, L. and S. Peters. 1979. Conventional implicature. In C.-K. Oh and D. A. Dinneen, eds., Syntax and Semantics 11: Presupposition, 1-56. New York: Academic Press.
  • Kim, A. 1985. Korean ideophones: An aspect of semantic fields, and related phenomena. Anthropological Linguistics 27(4), 425-436.
  • Kim, J.-B. and P. Sells. 2007. Korean honorification: A kind of expressive meaning. Journal of East Asian Linguistics Journal 16, 303-336. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-007-9014-4]
  • Kim, K.-O. 1977. Sound symbolism in Korean, Journal of Linguistics 13, 67-75. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700005211]
  • Kim-Renaud, Y.-K. 1976. Semantic features in phonology: Evidence from vowel harmony in Korean. Chicago Linguistic Society 12, 397-412.
  • Kölbel, M. 2004. Faultless disagreement. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 104(1), 53-73. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0309-7013.2004.00081.x]
  • Koo, H. J. 2007. Force dynamics as a variational factor: A case in Korean. LACUS Forum 33, 201-210.
  • Koo, H. J, and S. Rhee. 2018. Systematicity and synesthesia of ideophones in Korean. Paper presented at the Ideophones in the Language Sciences Workshop, the 20th International Congress of Linguists, Cape Town International Convention Center, South Africa.
  • Kroeger, P. 2016. Expressive Reduplication in Kimaragang. Handout presented at DFW Metroplex Conference.
  • Lasersohn, P. 2005. Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 28, 643-86. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-0596-x]
  • Lasersohn, P. 2008. Quantification and perspective in relativist semantics. Paper presented at the University of Chicago Compositionality Workshop. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1520-8583.2008.00150.x]
  • Lasersohn, P. 2009. Relative truth, speaker commitment, and control of implicit arguments. Synthese 166, 359-374. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9280-8]
  • Löbner, S. 2002. Understanding Semantics. London: Arnold: Blackwell.
  • Martin, S. E. 1962. Phonetic symbolism in Korean. American Studies in Altaic Linguistics (UA series 13), 117-89. Bloomington: Indiana University.
  • Morton, E. W. 1977. On the occurrence and significance of motivation-structural rules in some bird and mammal sounds. American Naturalist 111, 855-869. [https://doi.org/10.1086/283219]
  • McCready, E. 2010. Varieties of conventional implicature. Semantics and Pragmatics 3, 1-57. [https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.3.8]
  • McCready, E. 2004. Two Japanese adverbials and expressive content. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 14, 163-178. [https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v14i0.2910]
  • Newman, S. S. 1933. Further experiments in phonetic symbolism. American Journal of Psychology 45, 53-75. [https://doi.org/10.2307/1414186]
  • Ohala, J. J. 1997. Sound symbolism. Proceedings of 4th Seoul International Conference on Linguistics [SICOL], 98-103.
  • Potts, C. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicature. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  • Potts, C. 2007. The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics 33, 165-197. [https://doi.org/10.1515/TL.2007.011]
  • Sapir, E. 1929. A study in experimental symbolism. Journal of Experimental Psychology 12, 225-239. [https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070931]
  • Sawada, O. 2010. Pragmatic Aspects of Scalar Modifiers. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, IL, USA.
  • Sohn, H.-M. 1999, The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Shinohara, K. and S. Kawahara. 2012. A cross-linguistic study of sound symbolism: The images of size. Proceedings of BLS 36, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. [https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v36i1.3926]
  • Rhee, S. 2016. Lexicalization patterns in color naming in Korean. Paper presented at the Workshop of Lexicalization Patterns in Color Naming, the 17th Int’l Morphology Meeting (IMM-17), Vienna University, Austria, 2016.
  • Tarte, R. D. 1974. Phonetic symbolism in adult native speakers of Czech. Language and Speech 17, 87-94. [https://doi.org/10.1177/002383097401700109]
  • Ultan, R. 1978. Size-sound symbolism. In J. H. Greenberg. ed., Universals of Human Language 2, 525-568.
  • Yae, J. and Yoon, S. 2017. Compatibility condition for expressives revisited: a big data-based trend analysis. Language Sciences 64, 69-192. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2017.07.003]
  • Yoon, S. 2011. ‘Not’ in the Mood: the Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics of Evaluative Negation. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Chicago.
  • Yoon, S. 2013. Parametric variation in subordinate evaluative negation: Japanese/Korean vs. others. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 22(2), 133-166. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-012-9100-0]
  • Yoon, S. 2015. Semantic constraint and pragmatic nonconformity for expressives: compatibility condition on slurs, epithets, anti-honorifics, intensifiers, and mitigators. Language Sciences 52, 46-69. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2015.03.009]
  • Yoon, S. 2018. 77 Shades of Black: Pragmatics of emotive color terms, Journal of East Asian Linguistics 27(1), 1-34. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-018-9167-3]