Feature-based Honorifics and Politeness in English and Korean at a Syntax-Pragmatics Interface
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Shibatani (2006) states that whereas every language appears to have ways of expressing Politeness, only certain languages have well-developed Honorifics. This has been a long-sustained idea in the theory of Politeness and Pragmatics. More recently, Kashyap (2008), while discussing Bajjika spoken by 20 million people in the northern area of India, proposes that although every language adopts some strategy to make the language sound honorific or polite and not offensive, there be a clear distinction between polite utterances and honorific ones. This paper discusses the relationship between Honorifics and Politeness from a syntactic point of view. More specifically, how is Politeness grammatically and syntactically manifested in two languages, English and Korean if Politeness is a pragmatic universal? Based on Shibatani (2006) and Kashyap (2008), the present study argues that English and Korean Honorifics look radically different from each other from the superficial level and yet the dramatic difference should be attributed to the choice of domain(s) of the Honorifics Encoding via a feature checking mechanism. In particular, a feature-based theory of Honorifics originally proposed in Hong (2010,2011) is advocated and further extended in this paper so that the asymmetry in the manifestation of “rich” honorifics in Korean vs. “meager” honorifics in English can be uniformly accounted for. In conclusion, Korean Honorifics with [±Hon] feature is checked in the domain of DP, vP, and ForceP, and English Honorifics with [±Hon]feature is checked within CP (or ForceP) only. The checking mechanism employed in the current paper, of course, comes not from the early version of Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1993, 1995) in which the checking is between Spec-Head relations. Rather, this paper adopts the feature checking systems of Adger (2003, 2006, 2007) and Adger &Svenonius(2010), which means the checking feature is under Sisterhood. The difference in the number of the domains for checking [±Hon] feature between Sisterhood yields the discrepancy of the surface picture of the two languages; a “rich” Honorfic language vs. a “meager” Honorific language, just like a rich inflectional language vs a meager inflectional language.
Abstract
Shibatani (2006) states that whereas every language appears to have ways of expressing Politeness, only certain languages have well-developed Honorifics. This has been a long-sustained idea in the theory of Politeness and Pragmatics. More recently, Kashyap (2008), while discussing Bajjika spoken by 20 million people in the northern area of India, proposes that although every language adopts some strategy to make the language sound honorific or polite and not offensive, there be a clear distinction between polite utterances and honorific ones. This paper discusses the relationship between Honorifics and Politeness from a syntactic point of view. More specifically, how is Politeness grammatically and syntactically manifested in two languages, English and Korean if Politeness is a pragmatic universal? Based on Shibatani (2006) and Kashyap (2008), the present study argues that English and Korean Honorifics look radically different from each other from the superficial level and yet the dramatic difference should be attributed to the choice of domain(s) of the Honorifics Encoding via a feature checking mechanism. In particular, a feature-based theory of Honorifics originally proposed in Hong (2010,2011) is advocated and further extended in this paper so that the asymmetry in the manifestation of “rich” honorifics in Korean vs. “meager” honorifics in English can be uniformly accounted for. In conclusion, Korean Honorifics with [±Hon] feature is checked in the domain of DP, vP, and ForceP, and English Honorifics with [±Hon]feature is checked within CP (or ForceP) only. The checking mechanism employed in the current paper, of course, comes not from the early version of Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1993, 1995) in which the checking is between Spec-Head relations. Rather, this paper adopts the feature checking systems of Adger (2003, 2006, 2007) and Adger &Svenonius(2010), which means the checking feature is under Sisterhood. The difference in the number of the domains for checking [±Hon] feature between Sisterhood yields the discrepancy of the surface picture of the two languages; a “rich” Honorfic language vs. a “meager” Honorific language, just like a rich inflectional language vs a meager inflectional language.
참고문헌 (39)
- Adger, David, "Core Syntax" (2003), Oxford University press
- Adger, David, "Combinatorial variability", Journal of Linguistics, 42, pp.503~530 (2006)
- Adger, David, "Variability and modularity. A response to Hudson", Journal of Linguistics, 43, pp.695~700 (2007)
- Adger, David, "Features in Minimalist syntax. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism" (2010), Oxford University Press
- Brown, Penelope, "Politeness: Some Universals in Language" (1987), Cambridge University Press
- Cho, Joon-Hak, "Comparative Remarks on English and Korean Honorifics", English Language and Literuature, ~ (1979)
- Cho. Hang-P, "Cuhay Swunceon Kimssi cwultomyo kancal (Collection of Mrs. Kim of Swunceon’s Letters)" (1998), Taehak Publishing House
- 최인철, "Partial Honorific Agreement in Korean", 언어학, 12(2), pp.207~225 (2004), 대한언어학회
- Chomsky, Noam, "A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory, In The View from Building 20", pp.1~52 (1993), MIT Press
- Chomsky, Noam, "The Minimalist Program, Current Studies in Linguistics 28" (1995), MIT Press
- Chomsky, Noam, "On Nature and language" (2002), Cambridge University Press
- Chomsky, Noam, "Beyond Explanatory Adequacy, In Structures and Beyond", pp.104~131 (2004), Oxford University Press
- Chomsky, Noam, "Three factors in language design", Linguistic Inquiry, 36, pp.1~22 (2005)
- Chomsky, Noam, "Approaching UG from below" (2007), Mouton de Gruyter
- Culpeper, Jonathan, "Conventionalised Impoliteness formulae", Journal of Pragmatics, 42, pp.3232~3245 (2010)
- Gelderen, Elly. van, "Where did Late Merge go? Grammaticalization as feature Economy. Studia", ~ (2008)
- Grice, H. Paul, "Logic and Conversation, In The Philosophy of Language", pp.287~300 (1993), Oxford Univ. Press
- Hong, Sungshim, "The Syntax-Pragmatics Interface with Korean Honorifics with ‘caney’", presented at Western Conference on Linguistics (2010)
- Hong, Sungshim, "Polite but not Honorific: the syntax and pragmatics of ‘caney’, In Inquiries into Korean Linguistics IV", pp.111~124 (2011), Taehak Publishing House
- Hwang, Jeok-R, "Sociolinguistics of Language" (1993), Hanshin Mwunhwasa
- Hwang, Mwunwhan, "Origins of 2nd person pronoun ‘canay’", Korean Linguistics, 37, pp.197~218 (2001)
- Hwang, Mwunwhan, "Pragmatics of Vocatives between Spouses found in in Chosun Dynasty", pp.17~ (2007), Cangseogak
- Ide, Sachiko, "Formal forms and discernment: two neglected aspects of universals of politeness", Multilingua, 8, pp.223~248 (1989)
- Kashyap, Abhishek Kumar, "On Honorifics", Proceedings of International Systematic Functional Congress 35: Voices around the World, pp.201~206 (2008)
- Kim, Jae Min, "A Study of the Change of Honorific Expression represented in ‘apconpeop’", The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 12(1), pp.137~152
- Lakoff, Robin, "Language in Context", Language, 48(4) (1972)
- Rizzi, Luigi, "The fine structure of left periphery, In Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax" (1997), Foris
- Leech, Geoffrey, "Towards and anatomy of politeness in communication", International Journal of Pragmatics, 14, pp.101~123 (2003)
- Leech, Geoffrey, "Politeness: Is there an East-West Divide?", Journal of Foreign Languages, (6) (2005)
- Mills, Sara, "Impoliteness in a cultural context", Journal of Pragmatics, 41, pp.1047~1060 (2009)
- Nam, Ki-Shim, "Modern Korean syntax" (2005), Taehaksa Publishing House
- Shibatani, M., "Honorifics", In Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics, 381~390 (2006)
- Sohn, Sung-O, "Subject Honorifics in Complex Sentences in Korean", Korean Biligual Society (1989)
- Thomas, J., "Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics" (1995), Longman Group Ltd
- Yang, Young-H, "Functional comparison between 15th century Korean 2-person pronoun ‘ne’ and ‘keudey’", The Korean Language and Literature, 36, pp.51~71 (2004)
- Yang, Young-H, "Functional comparison between 16th century Korean 2-person pronoun ‘keudey’ and ‘caney’", Wurimal-keul Conference proceeding, pp.109~120 (2005)
- Yi, Eek-Seop, "Kwuke mwunpeoplon kanguy (Lectures on Korean Grammar)" (1999), Hakyeonsa
- Yu, Dong-seok, "On the co-relations between kwuke sangday Honorifics and Vocatives. Parameters in the Korean language. (Kwuke-uy maykapyeonin mwunpeop)", pp.275~289 (1995), Shinkwu Mwunhwasa
- Yu, Dong-seok, "Syntactic Approach to Sangdae nopimpeop (Relative Honorifics) Parameters in the Korean language. (Kwuke-uy maykapyeonin mwunpeop)" (1995), Shinkwu Mwunhwasa