Journal of East Asian Linguistics

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 21–39 | Cite as

The Korean conditional markers myen and tamyen: epistemicity vs. modes of language use

Article
  • 156 Downloads

Abstract

The Korean conditional markers myen and tamyen have been distinguished in terms of the speaker’s epistemic stance: while myen can be used with any speaker attitude, tamyen is only used with a hypothetical or irrealis attitude. However, tamyen-antecedents do not always express such an irrealis speaker attitude. This paper analyses the difference between myen and tamyen in terms of the modes of language use, i.e., descriptive and metarepresentational uses. It introduces the concept of interpretive use as defined and used in relevance theory and suggests that the ta in tamyen functions as an interpretive use marker. The presence of this interpretive use marker is responsible for the different felicities between myen- and tamyen-conditionals. Since a tamyen-antecedent is a metarepresentation of another representation, it is not used to describe a state of affairs in the content domain. This explains why deictic, generic, and temporal conditionals are more often used with myen, and given conditionals (i.e., conditionals whose antecedents are contextually given) with tamyen.

Keywords

Speaker’s epistemic attitude Metarepresentation Descriptive/interpretive use Relevance 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akatsuka Noriko. (1985) Conditionals and the epistemic scale. Language 61: 625–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bak Sung-Yun. (1988) Kwuke-uy cokenmun-ey kwanhaye [“On conditionals in Korean”]. Linguistic Journal of Korea 13.1: 1–14 (In Korean)Google Scholar
  3. Bak Sung-Yun. (2003) Conditionals in Korean revisited. Discourse and Cognition 10.2: 25–52Google Scholar
  4. Lee, Chang-Bong. 1996/2000. Conditionals as a discourse-bound entity: Pragmatics of Korean conditionals. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. (Published in 2000, Seoul: Hankook.)Google Scholar
  5. Lee, Chang-Bong. 1997. The discourse function of the -myen clause in Korean. In Japanese/Korean linguistics 6, eds. Ho-Min Sohn and John Haig, pp. 695--714. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Noh, Eun-Ju. 1998. A Relevance-theoretic account of metarepresentative uses in conditionals. In Current issues in relevance theory, eds. Villy Rouchota and Andreas Jucker, 271--304. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  7. Noh Eun-Ju. (2000) Metarepresentation: A Relevance Theory approach. John Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  8. Noh Eun-Ju. (2004) The Korean conditional markers myen and tamyen-with reference to conditionals in advertisements. Korean Journal of Linguistics 29(3): 307–328Google Scholar
  9. Park, Jeong-Woon. 2003. Epistemic stance in Korean conditional sentences. Paper presented at the Workshop on Conditionals, Nov 11, 2003, at the University of California Berkeley.Google Scholar
  10. Sohn Ho-Min. (1999) The Korean language. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. (Second Edition (with Postface) in 1995.)Google Scholar
  12. Sweetser Eve. (1990) From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of English Language and LiteratureInha UniversityNam-Gu, IncheonSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations