• Journal of Korean language education
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.181-219
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this study is to review the functions of {됐어} and {X了} as a discourse marker on different levels, and to examine their similarities and differences. {됐어} has not been widely recognized as a discourse marker in the field of Korean linguistics and Korean language education. Therefore, in order to establish the identity of {됐어} as a discourse marker, the reasons that {됐어} can be regarded as discourse marker were explained prior to the contrastive analysis. As to the method of contrastive analysis for {됐어} and {X了}, they were analyzed on three main dimensions: that is, the textual dimension, the interpersonal dimension, and the metalinguistic dimension in the corpus consisting of scripts of Korean and Chinese sitcoms. The results are as follows. In the textual domain, {됐어} and {X了} have the function of closing the topic in common, while {X了} can indicate a new topic and transmit a topic. In terms of functions in the interpersonal domain, {됐어} and {X了} are commonly used to refuse a partner's proposal or request and to interrupt a partner's speech or action. Furthermore, in the interactional aspect, {됐어} and {X了} performs the function of expressing a response to a preceding utterance and taking the turn of speaking. The difference between them in the interpersonal domain is that {X了} performs the function of correcting a speaker's utterance. In the metalinguistic domain, {됐어} and {X了} are common in that they perform the function of expressing the dissatisfaction of the speaker, showing generosity and making a compromise with the addressee. {X了}'s distinguishing characteristics in this domain is that it can express the attitude of consoling the hearer.

• Language and Information
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.127-153
• /
• 2015

Negative expressions have their semantic function of classical negation as a pure reverser of truth-values. They also have various kin and foes of their pragmatic functions such as association of bad feelings (Russell 1948), emphasis/attenuation by negative polarity items, sarcasm, and metalinguistic negation (MN). This paper explores how MN and descriptive negation (DN) differ and whether the difference creates pragmatic ambiguity (Horn 1987) or reflects merely contextual variations of one logical negation (Carston 1996). To test the debate, this paper treats certain degree modifiers licensed exclusively by MN as in Mia-ka POTHONG/Yekan yeppu-n key an-i-a [external neg] (vs. modifier NPIs like cenhye 'at all', licensed only by DN) and contrasts them with bad utterances of the MN modifiers in [short form neg] sentences (not for MN) such as Mia-ka POTHONG an yeppu-e. The ERP results of the well-formed vs. ill-formed conditions evoked the N400 at Cz in written stimuli and the N400 near the center on both hemispheres in spoken stimuli. The results suggest that the anomalies are meaning-related and tend to support the pragmatic ambiguity.