´ëÇѾð¾îÇÐȸ ÀüÀÚÀú³Î

´ëÇѾð¾îÇÐȸ

33±Ç 3È£ (2025³â 9¿ù)

-Nuntey for Not-at-Issue Content: A Preliminary Survey of Procedural Meaning in Korean

Drew Crosby ¡¤ Rok Sim

Pages : 97-128

DOI : https://doi.org/10.24303/lakdoi.2025.33.3.97

PDFº¸±â

¸®½ºÆ®

Abstract

Crosby, Drew & Sim, Rok. (2025). -Nuntey for not-at-issue content: A preliminary survey of procedural meaning in Korean. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 33(3), 97-128. This paper examines the Korean discourse connective -nuntey, proposing that it encodes procedural meaning and marks the clause it attaches to as not-at-issue. Drawing on Carston's (2016) diagnostics for procedural expressions, and the projectivity taxonomy of Tonhauser et al. (2013) tests for not-at-issueness, the study combines theoretical analysis with evidence from a small-scale elicitation survey involving four native Korean speakers. The results suggest that -nuntey consistently patterns with markers that convey backgrounded, non-truth-conditional information, guiding the hearer to infer a contextual relation between the -nuntey clause and the host utterance. This account unifies utterance-medial and utterance-final uses within a single Relevance-Theoretic framework, providing a more principled explanation of its discourse-pragmatic function. The paper concludes by suggesting directions for future research, including broader empirical testing and comparative analysis of related connectives such as -ciman and -killay. Overall, the findings contribute to a deeper understanding of procedural meaning and the ways in which Korean discourse connectives encode not-at-issue content.

Keywords

# discourse connectives # procedural meaning # not-at-issueness # -nuntey # information structure

References

  • Ahn, J., & Seon, E. (2013). Korean grammar in use: Advanced. Seoul: Darakwon.
  • Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers (Vol. 99). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Carston, R. (2008). Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Carston, R. (2016). The heterogeneity of procedural meaning. Lingua, 175, 154-166.
  • Dixon, R. M. W. (2009). Basic linguistic theory: Vol. 2. Grammatical topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Kim, K.-h., & Suh, K.-H. (2013). Formulating the ¡°affiliatable¡±: The -nuntey-clause as an interactional resource. Paper presented at Workshop on East Asian Linguistics 19 (WEAL 19), UCLA, California, April.
  • Lee, J.-E. (2018). A study of -nuntey based on a cross-linguistic study of semantic types of clause linking for the purpose of teaching Korean as a foreign language. Ijungeon-eohak [Bilingual Studies], 71, 69-99.
  • Lee, K.-d. (1980). The pragmatic function of the connective -nuntey. Ene [Language], 5(1), 119-135.
  • Min, J., & Ahn, J. (2011). Korean grammar in use: Intermediate. Seoul: Darakwon.
  • Nuntey. (n.d.). In Naver Yenge Sajen [Naver English Dictionary]. Retrieved from https://en.dict.naver.com/#/search?range=all&query=%EB%8A%94%EB%8D%B0
  • Park, Y. Y. (1999). The Korean connective -nuntey in conversational discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(2), 191-218.
  • Roberts, C., Simons, M., Beaver, D., & Tonhauser, J. (2009, June). Presupposition, conventional implicature, and beyond: A unified account of projection. In Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2009 Workshop New Directions in the Theory of Presupposition. Bordeaux, France.
  • Simons, M., Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D., & Roberts, C. (2010). What projects and why. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), 21, 309-327.
  • Sohn, S. O. S. (2015). Grammaticalization. In L. Brown & J. Yeon (Eds.), The handbook of Korean linguistics (pp. 320-336). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Tonhauser, J. (2012). Diagnosing (not-) at-issue content. In Proceedings of Semantics of Underrepresented Languages of the Americas (SULA), 6, 239-254.
  • Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D., Roberts, C., & Simons, M. (2013). Toward a taxonomy of projective content. Language, 89(1), 66-109.
  • Wilson, D. (2016). Reassessing the conceptual-procedural distinction. Lingua, 175, 5-19.