77 Shades of black: the pragmatics of emotive color terms in Korean

Article
  • 7 Downloads

Abstract

In this study, we aim to propose the Pragmatics and Semantics of what we term the emotive color terms (ECTs) in Korean as a subcase of expressive elements, analyzed as Conventional Implicature (Potts in The logic of conventional implicature, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005 et seq.). In exploring extremely complex connotational nuances in 77 variants of ECTs, we show the regularity of how such abundant derivations can be achieved by systematic phonetic and morphological alternations. What is particularly noteworthy about Korean color terms, however, is the fact that many of the possible variants can convey the speaker’s positive or negative emotional attitude that is reflected in a particular derivation of the color term, in addition to the regular meaning of the color term concerning quality/quantity of the color (Kennedy and McNally in Synthese 174(1):79–98, 2010). To capture the precise meaning difference, we propose a hybrid analysis of ECTs at the interface of Pragmatics and Semantics, which allows us to successfully capture the subtle differences in numerous variants of the ECT. Furthermore, we show how the dynamic paradigm of multiple expressives, ECTs and others, can be predicted by the Compatibility Condition Model and the Compatibility Condition Index (Yoon in Spec Issue Slurs Lang Sci 52:46–69, 2015; Yae and Yoon in Lang Sci 64:69–102, 2017). The rigorous investigation of 77 possible variants for a single color like ‘black’ reveals the systematicity of expressives, as part of our grammar, while the identification of another case of expressive element in language further supports the notion of multidimensionality.

Keywords

Multidimensionality Expressives Conventional implicature Emotive color term (ECT) Compatibility condition Quality/quantity of color Korean 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This project was financially supported in part by a startup fund at the University of Texas at Arlington. We are very thankful to the editors of JEAL, and anonymous reviewers for generous commenting on the earlier version of the manuscript. We also want to thank Anastasia Giannakidou, Jason Merchant, Christopher Kennedy, and Marcel den Dikken for their support and inspiration.

References

  1. Asudeh, A. 2012. The logic of pronominal resumption. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berlin, B., and P. Kay. 1969. Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ching, M.K.L. 1982. The question intonation in assertions. American Speech 57: 95–107.Google Scholar
  4. Choe, J.-W. 2004. Obligatory honorification and the honorific feature. Studies in Generative Grammar 14: 545–559.Google Scholar
  5. Constant, N., C. Davis, C. Potts, and F. Schwarz. 2009. The pragmatics of expressive content: Evidence from large corpora. Sprache und Datenverarbeitung 33: 5–21.Google Scholar
  6. Cruse, D.A. 1986. Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Farkas, D.F. 1992. On the semantics of subjunctive complements. In Romance languages and linguistic theory, ed. P. Hirschbühler and K. Koerner, 69–104. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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, eds. L. Geist, K. von Heusinger, H. Kamp, U. Klein, F. Martin, E. Onea, A. Riester and T. Solstad, 141–156. Stuttgart: Online Publikationsverbund der Universität Stuttgart (OPUS).Google Scholar
  10. Giannakidou, A. 1998. Polarity sensitivity as (non)veridical dependency. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Giannakidou, A. 1999. Affective dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 367–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics III: Speech acts, ed. P. Cole and J. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gutzmann, D. 2011. “Expressive modifiers and mixed expressives.” In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics vol. 7, ed. O. Bonami, O, Hofherr., Colloque de Syntaxe et Sematique de Paris, Paris, 123–141.Google Scholar
  14. Gutzmann, D. and K. Turgay. 2012. “Expressive intensifiers in German: syntaxsemantics mismatches.” In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9. ed. C. Piñón, 149–166.Google Scholar
  15. Hinton, L., J. Nichols, and J.J. Ohala. 1994. Sound symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Joe, J. and C. Lee. 2002. “A ‘removal’ type of negative predicates.” In Proceedings of the 10 th Japanese Korean linguistics conference. CSLI Publication.Google Scholar
  17. Kaplan, D. 1999. The Meaning of Ouch and Oops: Explorations in the Theory of Meaning as Use, (unpublished manuscript). University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  18. Karttunen, L. and S. Peters. 1979. “Conventional implicature.” In Syntax and Semantics vol. 11: Presupposition, ed. C.-K. Oh and D. A. Dinneen, 1–56. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kennedy, C., and L. McNally. 2010. Color, context and compositionality. Synthese 174 (1): 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kennedy, C. 1999. “Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison.” New York: Garland (1997 UCSC PhD thesis).Google Scholar
  21. Kim, A. 1985. Korean color terms: An aspect of semantic fields, and related phenomena. Anthropological Linguistics 27(4): 425–436.Google Scholar
  22. Kim, J.-B., and P. Sells. 2007. Korean honorification: A kind of expressive meaning. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 16: 303–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kim, K.-O. 1977. Sound symbolism in Korean. Journal of Linguistics 13: 67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Klein, E., and I. Sag. 1985. Type-driven translation. Linguistics and Philosophy 8: 163–201.Google Scholar
  25. Kölbel, M. 2004. Faultless disagreement. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 104(1): 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kratzer, A. 1999. “Beyond ouch and oops: how descriptive and expressive meaning interact.” Cornell Conference on Theories of Context Dependency (26 March), Cornell University.Google Scholar
  27. Kroeger, P. 2016. Expressive Reduplication in Kimaragang. Handout presented at DFW Metroplex Conference Oct. 21.Google Scholar
  28. Lasersohn, P. 2005. “Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste.” Linguistics and Philosophy 28: 643–686.Google Scholar
  29. Lasersohn, P. 2008. Quantification and perspective in relativist semantics. Paper presented at the University of Chicago Compositionality Workshop, May.Google Scholar
  30. Lasersohn, P. 2009. Relative truth, speaker commitment, and control of implicit arguments. Synthese 166: 359–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee, I., and R. Ramsey. 2000. The Korean language. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lehrer, A. 1974. Semantic Fields and Lexical Structure: North-Holland Linguistics Series II. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  33. Löbner, S. 2002. Understanding Semantics. London: Arnold: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  34. Martin, S. E. 1962. “Phonetic symbolism in Korean.” American Studies in Altaic Linguistics (UA series 13), 117–89. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
  35. McCready, E. 2010. Varieties of conventional implicature. Semantics and Pragmatics 3: 1–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McCready, E. 2004. Two Japanese adverbials and expressive content. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 14: 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McCready, E., and M. Schwager. 2009. Intensifiers. DGfS, Osnabrück: Paper presented at Workshop on Non-truth-conditional Meaning.Google Scholar
  38. Morton, E.W. 1977. On the occurrence and significance of motivation-structural rules in some bird and mammal sounds. American Naturalist 111: 855–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ohala, J. J. 1997. “Sound symbolism.” In Proc. 4th Seoul International Conference on Linguistics [SICOL] 11–15 Aug 1997. 98–103.Google Scholar
  40. Partee, B. H. 2009. Lecture 7: Expressives. Lecture notes on formal semantics.Google Scholar
  41. Potts, C. 2003. “Expressive content as conventional implicature.” In Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society 33. ed. M. Kadowaki and S. Kawahara, GLSA, Amherst, pp. 303–322.Google Scholar
  42. Potts, C. 2005. The logic of conventional implicature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Potts, C. 2007a. The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics 33: 165–197.Google Scholar
  44. Potts, C. 2007b. The dimensions of quotation. In Direct compositionality, ed. C. Barker and P. Jacobson, 405–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Potts, C., and S. Kawahara. 2004. Japanese honorifics as emotive definite descriptions. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 14: 235–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sawada, O. 2010. “Pragmatic Aspects of Scalar Modifiers.” Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  47. Sohn, H.-M. 1999. The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Shinohara, K., and S. Kawahara. 2012. “A cross-linguistic study of sound symbolism: The images of size.” In Proceedings of BLS, vol. 36. Available: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/kawahara/pdf/BLS paperShinoKawafixedOct2010.pdf.
  49. Yae, J., and S. Yoon. 2017. Compatibility condition for expressives revisited: A big data-based trend analysis. Language Sciences 64: 69–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yoon, J. 2005. Non-morphological determination of nominal affix ordering in Korean. In Clitic and affix combinations: Theoretical perspectives, ed. L. Heggie, and F. Ordóñez, 239–282. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  51. Yoon, S. 2011. “‘Not’ in the Mood: the Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics of Evaluative Negation.” Ph.D. thesis. University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  52. Yoon, S. 2013. Parametric variation in subordinate evaluative negation: Japanese/Korean vs. others. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 22(2): 133–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yoon, S. 2015. Semantic constraint and pragmatic nonconformity for expressives: compatibility condition on slurs, epithets, anti-honorifics, intensifiers, and mitigators. Special Issue on Slurs at Language Sciences 52: 46–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Linguistics and TESOLUniversity of Texas, ArlingtonArlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations