Affiliation:
1. Hankuk University of Foreign Studies , Seoul , Korea
2. Chinese University of Hong Kong , Shenzhen , China
Abstract
Abstract
Pragmatic markers are linguistic resources, many of them highly ubiquitous, that provide speakers with a means to display their stance toward a given proposition and, at the same time, toward their fellow interlocutors and others. Using naturally-occurring spoken data from the Sejong Spoken Corpus, we examine the role of Korean pragmatic marker com as an interactional resource for stance management in conversation. We integrate a ‘stance triangle’ framework and a dialogicality model that involves both ‘internal’ and ‘external’ dialogic processes, and analyze how Korean com is recruited as a face-threat mitigator to attenuate the assertive force of a speaker’s utterance in a variety of conversational contexts. Our findings indicate that the use of com is frequently motivated by sociocultural values, reframed as politeness norms, which prompt speakers to modulate their position in ways that mitigate face-loss for both themselves and others. We thus propose an expanded version of the ‘stance triangle’ for situations involving mitigation acts whereby, in potentially dis-aligning contexts, the speaker’s external positioning toward the stance object often does not directly nor fully reflect their internal evaluation, indicating a frequent desire among fellow interlocutors to preserve solidarity with each other.
Funder
Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
Subject
Linguistics and Language,Philosophy,Communication,Language and Linguistics,Polymers and Plastics,General Environmental Science
Reference44 articles.
1. Ahn, Kyungja. 2009. A discourse-pragmatic study of com in Korean. Language Research 45(2). 257–281.
2. An, Ju Ho. 2009. A study on the meaning and function on shortened-form discourse markers {jom, mak}. Journal of Korealex 14. 199–223.
3. Arundale, Robert B. 2005. Pragmatics, conversational implicature, and conversation. In Kristine L. Fitch & Robert E. Sanders (eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction, 41–63. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Arundale, Robert B. 2006. Face as relational and interactional: A communication framework for research on face, facework and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research 2. 193–216. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr.2006.011.
5. Arundale, Robert B. 2009. Face as emergent in interpersonal communication: An alternative to Goffman. In Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini & Michael Haugh (eds.), Face, communication and social interaction, 33–54. London: Equinox Publishing.
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献