From a noun to a discourse marker: The case of seysang ‘world’ in Korean

Cover Page

Cite item

Abstract

This study delves into the semantic evolution of the Korean lexeme seysang . Despite its rich functional development, seysang has received limited attention in grammaticalization research. This study addresses this gap by exploring its extended meanings and functional shifts in Korean. It aims to trace the transformation of seysang from a historical noun to its role as a contemporary discourse marker (DM) which conveys a range of pragmatic meanings, marking the speaker’s emotions and stances. Using historical and contemporary corpora, including data spanning from the 15th century to modern media, this paper qualitatively analyzes the grammaticalization process of seysang while quantitatively examining the discourse functions of seysangey . The analysis particularly focuses on seysangey ’s positional flexibility within Left Periphery (LP), Right Periphery (RP), and stand-alone positions, and its preference in positive, negative, and neutral contexts. This study further investigates whether seysangey ’s LP and RP functions align with previous research, which associates LP with subjectification and RP with intersubjectification. The analyses indicate that seysangey exhibits both subjectification and intersubjectification across LP, RP, and stand-alone positions. Findings reveal that seysang has expanded to signify broader social spaces, from birth-to-death spans and societal environments beyond enclosed communities to symbolic meanings of people’s hearts and the earthly realm. It also functions adverbially as ‘very’ (degree modifier) and ‘at all’ (negative polarity item). In Contemporary Korean, seysangey operates as a flexible DM marking subjectivity, intersubjectivity, and speaker stance, providing insight into the complexities of language evolution and external influences shaping the Korean lexicon and grammar.

Full Text

  1. Introduction

Korea has historically engaged in extensive interactions with China due to geopolitical and cultural dynamics. This enduring relationship is evident in the significant proportion of Korean vocabulary that originates from Chinese (Narrog & Rhee 2013, Rhee 2020, 2021). Norman (1988) provides a comprehensive overview of the Chinese language, including its history, structure, and dialects, highlighting the role of written texts in the spread of Chinese vocabulary to neighboring languages such as Korean. According to Rhee (2021), based on findings by Sohn (1999: 87) and Kim (2002), approximately 60% of Korean vocabulary is of Chinese origin (Sohn 1999: 87), and in the authoritative dictionary Phyocwun Kwuke Taysacen (1992) by the National Institute of the Korean Language, 57.3% of its headwords are of Chinese origin (W.Y Lee 2002). Rhee (2021) further states that quantitative studies reveal a much lower percentage of Sino-Korean words used in daily life. For instance, Kim (2005) shows that only 19% of the top 100 high-frequency words are Sino-Korean. Similarly, the proportion of discourse markers derived from Sino-Korean words is very low, at 14.4% (27 out of about 188), though the exact number of discourse markers is not definitive. It is well recognized that some Chinese-origin words serve as discourse markers in various Asian languages (e.g., Rhee et al. 2021).

Sohn (1999) delves into the influence of Chinese on Korean, particularly through the borrowing of Chinese vocabulary in written form and addresses the differences between Sino-Korean vocabulary and native Korean words, highlighting how these influences have shaped modern Korean. The extensive borrowing of Chinese vocabulary into Korean primarily occurred through written texts, which differs from typical cases of lexical borrowing through colloquial registers (Norman 1988, Sohn 1999, Narrog et al. 2018, Irwin & Zisk 2019). Narrog et al. (2018) discuss the process of grammaticalization in various Asian languages, including Korean, and highlight instances where written Chinese influenced the grammatical structures of Korean, leading to the development of new grammatical elements. They emphasize how written Chinese texts facilitated the grammaticalization process, resulting in the adoption of new adverbials, numeral classifiers, and deverbal postpositions in Korean (Narrog et al. 2018). According to Rhee (2020) and Eom & Rhee (2021), the development of a discourse marker (DM) from a Sino-Korean phrasal expression is unique (see Shibasaki (2021), and Higashiizumi & Takahashi (2021) for similar cases in Japanese). Irwin and Zisk (2019) explore the borrowing of Chinese vocabulary into Korean and Japanese, focusing on how written Chinese texts served as a primary medium for these borrowings and examining the subsequent grammaticalization of some of these borrowed terms.

Recent studies (Rhee et al. 2021, Higashiizumi & Shibasaki in preparation), and this special issue volume focus on Chinese-origin words used in Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Thai and Chinese, exploring theoretically significant issues related to language contact. One notable example is the Korean lexeme seysang (世上) meaning ‘the world,’ which is of Chinese origin. A historical survey shows that the first appearance of seysang is attested in the 15th century, meaning ‘the world people live in.’ While seysang primarily translates to ‘the world,’ its semantic journey through the centuries has seen it adopt various meanings and functions, including its use as a discourse marker (DM) in the formation seysangey (‘in the world’), which combines seysang with the locative particle -ey, in contemporary Korean. Despite these intriguing transformations, including shifts from concrete to abstract meanings and grammatical functions, the development of seysang has not received sufficient scholarly attention.

This study addresses this research gap by examining the grammaticalization process of seysang, from a noun meaning ‘the world’ to the discourse marker seysangey. Using historical and contemporary corpora, this study explores how seysang has expanded to convey a range of pragmatic meanings, marking speaker emotions and stances. The goal is to trace these transformations and understand their implications within the broader framework of Korean language evolution.
It aims to answer the following research questions:

  1. How has seysang evolved from a concrete noun to a discourse marker in contemporary Korean?
  2. What are the specific pragmatic meanings and speaker stances conveyed by seysangey in discourse?
  3. How does the grammaticalization of seysang reflect broader patterns in Korean language change?

This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the theoretical framework, Section 3 describes the data and methods, Section 4 provides data analysis and answers to the research questions, Section 5 discusses the findings, and Section 6 concludes the study.

  1. Theoretical framework

Grammaticalization refers to “a process that transforms lexemes into grammatical elements and further increases the grammatical nature of these elements” (Kuryłowicz 1965, Lehmann 2015[1995]). This process typically involves a transition from concrete to abstract meanings and from independent lexical items to dependent grammatical elements. For instance, a noun or verb may evolve into a preposition, conjunction, or auxiliary verb over time. Heine and Kuteva (2002) describe grammaticalization as a unidirectional process in which content words (like nouns and verbs) gradually become function words (like prepositions and conjunctions), often resulting in the reduction of phonetic substance and an increase in frequency of use. The evolution of seysang serves as a clear example of this linguistic phenomenon, illustrating how a term denoting ‘the world’ has transitioned into various grammatical forms.

Previous studies have examined the asymmetry in the peripheral functions of linguistic forms, suggesting that left-periphery (LP) functions are generally linked to subjective roles, while right-periphery (RP) functions are associated with intersubjective roles (Adamson 2000, Onodera 2007, Degand 2014, Traugott 2014, Beeching & Detges 2014, Onodera & Traugott 2016). This study applies these hypotheses to analyze seysangey in Present-Day Korean.

  1. Data and methods

The research combines a historical review of linguistic data from classical and Modern Korean texts with an analysis of contemporary usage in media and literature. Two corpora are utilized as data sources. Historical data comes from a 15-million-word historical corpus, part of the larger 21st Century Sejong Corpus developed by the Korean Ministry of Culture and Tourism, spanning from the 15th century to the early 20th century. Contemporary Korean data is drawn from a 24-million-word Drama & Movies Corpus, developed by Min Li of Tsinghua University, comprising 7,454 scripts from films, TV dramas, and sitcoms created between 1992 and 2015. The search engine UNICONC, used to analyze both corpora, was created by Jinho Park of Seoul National University1.

The methodology involves several key steps:

  • Data collection: Gathering relevant texts from the historical and contemporary corpora to track the usage of seysang and its grammatical forms.
  • Data analysis: Using qualitative methods to examine the contexts and semantic shifts of seysang in historical texts, and quantitative methods to analyze frequency and distribution in contemporary usage.
  • Comparative analysis: Comparing the findings from historical and contemporary data to identify patterns of grammaticalization and the factors influencing these changes.
  • Theoretical integration: Integrating the results with existing theories of grammaticalization to draw broader conclusions about the linguistic processes involved.

This study follows the periodization proposed by K. M Lee (2006[1961]) in Kwukesakaysel (An Outline of the History of the Korean):

  • Old Korean (OK; before 918):
    Use of early Chinese character borrowing systems in inscriptions and texts from the Three Kingdoms and Unified Silla periods2.
  • Early Middle Korean (EMK; 918~1445):
    Linguistic features observed in documents and records from the Goryeo Dynasty, including the development of Chinese character borrowing systems.
  • Late Middle Korean (LMK; 1446~1600):
    Written and grammatical systems found in texts after the creation (1443) and promulgation (1446) of Hangul, the Korean writing system.
  • Early Modern Korean (EMoK; 1601~1893):
    Standardized Korean language usage and foreign word incorporation evident in late Joseon Dynasty literature
  • Modern Korean (MoK; 1894~present):
    Changes in vocabulary and grammar observed in documents from the post-Enlightenment period to present-day newspapers and magazines.
  • Present-Day Korean (PDK; 2000~present; PDK is a component of MoK):
    Emergence of new vocabulary and expressions in the internet and digital media since the early 21st century.

Romanization adheres to the Extended Yale System (Rhee 1996). Consistent with Korean historical linguistics conventions, Chinese characters in historical data are represented in capital letters using Modern Korean pronunciation. For simplicity in typography, old Korean characters are shown in a simplified form.

The study’s methodology is both qualitative and quantitative. This study also examines the discourse marker seysangey in Present-Day Korean, focusing on its use in left-periphery (LP), right-periphery (RP), and stand-alone positions. Drawing from the Min Li Drama & Movies Corpus, we analyze contexts (positive, negative, and neutral) in which seysangey is used, exploring its pragmatic functions and distribution across different sentence positions. The qualitative descriptive approach is rooted in the theory of grammaticalization, which elucidates how lexical items transform into grammatical elements, providing a framework for understanding the historical development of grammatical structures. The quantitative aspect involves the analysis of frequency and usage patterns.

  1. Analysis and results

As mentioned in Section 1, the noun seysang (世上) is composed of two Chinese lexemes. Sey (世) means ‘human being,’ and sang (上) means ‘top.’ The primary meaning of seysang is ‘the world or the society people live in.’ Initially used to denote ‘the physical world,’ seysang appeared in various philosophical and historical texts where it connoted a sense of space and existence. Over the centuries, its usage expanded to incorporate more abstract notions, reflecting changes in society and philosophy. In the following subsections, the examples are excerpted from the Sejong Historical Corpus and contemporary corpus, Min Li’s Drama & Movies Corpus to illustrate the evolution of seysang from a noun to a discourse marker.

4.1. Seysang in Late Middle Korean

When seysang appeared in Korean in the 15th century, it was used as
a full-fledged noun, with examples marked by possessive, locative, and topic markers. In the 16th century, examples with accusative markers were also found. Twusienhay is a book that translates the works of Du Fu (杜甫), a poet from the Tang Dynasty in China (618~907). This translation was commissioned by royal decree during the Joseon Dynasty (1392–1897). The first edition was published as a printed book during the reign of King Seongjong (1481), and the reprinted edition was published during the reign of King Injo (1632). Examples (1) & (2) are taken from this book. Seysang’s semantic function was predominantly to denote ‘the world people live in,’ as shown in (1):

(1)     世上앳                 길히             비록               해      어즈러우나

SEYSANG-ays   kil-hi            pilok               hay     eculewu-na

the world-GEN    path-NOM   nevertheless   very    chaotic-CONN

내의     사롬도          또한      가지            잇나니라

nay-uy    salom-to       stohAn    kAzi             isnAnila

I-Gen      living-also    also         end-NOM    exit-DEC

‘Although the way of the world is very chaotic, my life also has an end.’

(1481 Twusienhay 10:3b )

In example (1), the word seysang as a noun is employed with a genitive marker and modifies the noun kil ‘way.’ It denotes ‘the world we live in,’ which is the primary meaning of seysang.

(2)     世上애              그듸가티       가난하니     잇디               아니하니라

SEYSANG-ay   kutuy-kAthi    kananhAn-i    is-ti                  ani.hA-nila

the.world-LOC   you-like          poor.person    exist-COMP    not.do.-DEC

‘In the world, there is no poor person like you.’

(1481 Twusienhay 16:27b)

In example (2), seysang was used with a locative ay (-ey in Modern Korean), indicating ‘in the world we live in’ as well.

4.2 Seysang in Early Modern Korean to Modern Korean

The transition from Early Modern Korean to Modern Korean marked significant changes in the usage of seysang. It began to appear as seysangey, a discourse marker used for emphasis and emotional expression in everyday conversation. This transformation is indicative of the lexeme’s grammaticalization process.

4.2.1. Nominal form with nominal function

In Early Modern Korean, seysang primarily functioned as a noun, denoting the world or society people live in. Over time, its usage expanded to encompass various abstract and metaphorical meanings, reflecting broader societal and philosophical changes.

(3)     어진         덕을           닷가       한가한       대     나아갓다가

ecin           tel–ul           taska        hAnkahAn   tAi   naakas-taka

righteous  virtue-ACC  cultivate  leisurely       time  move.forward-CONN  

일쳔              해만의            셰샹을              바려                가   신션의

ilchyen            hayman-uy       syeysyang-ul      pAli-e                 ka   sinsyen-uy    

one.thousand  year.just-GEN  the world-ACC  abandon-CONN  go  immortal-LOC

올라     뎌    흰구롬을             타   하날의        니라면

olla        tye   huykwulom-ul       tha   hanAl-uy     nil-Amyem

ascend  that  white.cloud-ACC   ride  sky-LOC     reach-COND

‘[…] then, having cultivated virtuous deeds and during a tranquil time, if one wishes to abandon the world of a thousand years and become an immortal riding on white clouds, […]’

                                             (1832 Sipkwusalyakenhay: text 26)

The sentence in example (3) is an excerpted example from Sipkwusalyakenhay. This book provides Korean annotations and commentary on the first volume of Sipkwusalyakthongko compiled by the scholar Yeojin from the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644). The book includes translated text for each chapter, but there is no preface or colophon, so the translator is unknown. Several versions of the book are available, but the edition published in 1832 by the Gyeongsang Provincial Office (Daegu) is noteworthy for its relevance to dialectology according to Dialectology Dictionary (2003). Here in (3), seysang is used to denote the span of a person’s life, specifically referencing the total duration of their earthly existence, which is contrasted with the pursuit of immortality. This shows seysang as referring to the entire human life cycle.

Next, the example (4) is taken from Cywunyenchemlyeykwangik, which is a spiritual and moral cultivation book published in 1865 by Berneux, the fourth Apostolic Vicar of the Joseon Diocese. It was created to aid Korean Catholic believers in their spiritual and moral development.

(4)     나  뵈시고              명하샤                         쥬교와          교종끠

na  po-isi-ko              myeonghA-si-ya              cywukyo-wa   kyocong-kkuy

I   see-HON-CONN  command-HON-CONN  bishop-and       monks-together

품하야             온       셰샹           사람을       위하야         이  쳠례와

phwumhA-ya  on         syeysyang  salAm-ul       wihAya            i       chyemlyey-wa

hold-CONN     whole  the.world    people-ACC  for.the.sake.of  this  feast-and

‘Seeing me and commanding, the bishop and the monks joined together to hold this ceremony for all the people in the world.’

(1865 Cywunyenchemlyeykwangik: text 74)

In example (4), syesyang “셰샹” is an orthographic variant of seysang “세상.” In this context, seysang refers to the general secular society, as perceived from the perspective of the religious community, rather than the entire world where all people live. Therefore, seysang in this sentence corresponds to the outside society. This usage shows how seysang can denote a broader societal context.

Examples (5) through (8) are taken from Sinhakwelpo, which is a theological magazine first published in December 1900 by missionary G. H. Jones, while stationed in Jemulpo. The magazine was published until 1904, then temporarily ceased before resuming publication in 1907, continuing until the fall of 1909.

(5)     거륵하신            텬당보좌를            떠나사        더러온            세상

kelukhA-si-n        thyentangpocwa-ul   stena-sa        teleo-n            seysang-ey     

holy-HON-ADN  heaven.throne-ACC  leave-HON unclean-ADN  the.world-LOC 

오서서

o.se-se

come.HON-CONN

‘[Jesus] left the holy heaven throne, came to the unclean earthly world, and’

(1902 Sinhakwelpo 2:573)

In example (5), the word seysang refers to ‘the earthly world’ in contrast to ‘the heavenly world.’ Here, seysang is used to describe the “unclean earthly world” as opposed to the “holy heaven throne” that Jesus left. This usage highlights the dichotomy between the sacred and the profane, emphasizing the contrast between the heavenly and earthly realms.

(6)     복음을            전파하엿스면             이거시    참       우리의      깃분      

pokum-ul        cenphaha-yessu-myen  ikes-i       cham   wuli-uy     kispwu-n

gospel-ACC   evangelize-PST-if         it-NOM   really   we-GEN   happy-ADN  

세상이          될지라

seysang-i       toy-l-cila

the.world-NOM   become-FUT-DEC

‘If the gospel is evangelized, it will be really the happy world.’

(1903 Sinhakwelpo 3:476)

Seysang in example (6) is part of the phrase “깃분 세상,” which literally translates to “happy world.” In this context, seysang is not merely referring to the physical world but is associated with the emotional or mental state of the people. The phrase emphasizes the inner joy or happiness brought by the gospel. Thus, seysang here reflects the emotional transformation of the people’s hearts and minds, marking a shift from a reference to the physical world to symbolizing an emotional state. When used in this sense, seysang is often paired with adjectives that describe human emotions, such as “야박한” (cold-hearted) or “따뜻한” (warm-hearted), further highlighting its role in conveying emotional and mental states.

(7)     가령              우리   교회로           말하야도       그리스도교    세상

kalyeng         wuli    kyohoy-lo       malha-yado   kulisutokyo      seysang-ey

for.example   we      church-INST  say-CONN    Christianity      the.world-LOC 

행한지                  일천오백년에            만일   덕국의          마틘루터가           

hayngha-n-ci         ilchenopayk.nyen-ey  manil  tekkwuk-uy    mathuynlwuthe-ka     

do-ADN- NOMZ  1500.years-at              if        German-GEN   Martin Luther-NOM    

안낫더면

an.nas.temyen

not.come-COND

‘For example, even when we talk about our church, in the 1,500 years of the Christian world, if Martin Luther from Germany hadn’t appeared …’

(1903 Sinhakwelpo 3:399)

 Seysang in example (7) refers to the Christian world, illustrating the context or environment where individuals or groups can be active. This usage shows how seysang can denote the societal or cultural sphere in which significant events or movements occur.

(8)     상고에              하나님끠서               세상을            지으시고

sangko-ey            hana-nim-skuyse        seysang-ul         ci-usi-ko

ancient.epoch-at  the.God-HON-NOM  the.world-ACC  create-HON-CONN

‘At a very ancient epoch, the God created the earth and …’

(1903 Sinhakwelpo 3:483)

In example (8), seysang indicates the earth inhabited by life. This demonstrates that seysang, while primarily meaning ‘the world inhabited by people,’ can also extend to mean the physical land or the earth.

4.2.2. Nominal form with adverbial function

In transitioning from Early Modern Korean to Modern Korean, seysang underwent significant changes not only in meaning but also in grammatical function. While examples (3) to (8) illustrate seysang functioning as a noun, its role evolved further.

The next example is excerpted from Kwenikcwungsilki, published in 1926. It explores the distinction between the two types of individuals, depicting stories that illustrate what constitutes loyalty versus betrayal. The below example (9) is an intriguing instance where seysang demonstrates two different grammatical functions within a single sentence.

(9)     세상          몹슬      귀신들은         부귀영화로                            사는          사람

Seysang    mopsul  kwisin-tul-un    pwukwiyenghwa-lo                sa-nun       salam

the.world  wicked   ghost-PL-TOP  wealth.and.prosperity-INST  live-AND  person

세상에             만컨마는              불상한          유리객을   이지경       속이나냐?

seysang-ey         man-khenmanum  pwulsangha-n yulikayk-ul  i-cikyeng     soki-nanya

the.world-LOC  many-although      poor-ADN      drifter-ACC this-NOMZ trick-Q

‘How do the very wicked ghosts trick a poor drifter this much although there are many people in the world who are in wealth and prosperity?’

(1926 Kwenikcwungsilki 1)

Degree modifiers are expressions used in grammar to intensify or compare the degree or intensity of adjectives or adverbs. They highlight the strength or extremity of a quality or action, often through comparison or emphasizing words like very, extremely, or beyond compare. In example (9), seysang in the first line acts as an adverbial degree modifier before the adjective 몹슬 ‘wicked’, emphasizing the degree of wickedness by comparing it to the extremes of the world. On the
other hand, the second occurrence of seysang underlined is used with the locative particle -ey, meaning ‘the world where people live,’ functioning as a noun.

The next example demonstrates another adverbial use of seysang:

(10)      사은품에         따라        백화점                매출이         왔다갔다하니

saunphwum-ey  ttala          paykhwacem        maychwul-i   wasstakasstaha-ni

freebie-to          according  department store  sales- NOM   came.and.went-CONN

세상         이거        되겠어?

seysang     ike            toy-keyss-e

the.world   it[NOM]  become-FUT-Q

‘Department store sales go up and down depending on the freebies. Is this going to work at all?’

(2007. Drama. Que sera sera)

In example (10), seysang in a noun form functions as an adverb and reinforces the negative meaning of ‘at all,’ modifying the sentence, Is this going to work?. Seysang in this usage tends to become a negative polarity item. This evolution of seysang from a noun to an adverb illustrates its dynamic nature in the Korean language.

4.2.3. Seysangey as a discourse marker

Examples (9) and (10) showcase seysang in its nominal form but functioning adverbially, marking an important shift in its usage. Moreover, from example (11) onwards, we observe seysangey, a compound of seysang and the locative
particle -ey (literally meaning ‘in the world’), developing into a discourse marker (DM) with varied functions. This progression highlights the dynamic nature of seysang as it transitioned from a noun to a DM in Modern Korean, ultimately becoming a versatile component of Present-Day Korean.

Heine (2002) argues that there are four stages to how a linguistic expression acquires a new grammatical meaning. In the bridging context stage, there is a specific context giving rise to an inference in favor of a new meaning. The example in (11) shows a bridging stage.

(11)      내         보니          世上에             뎌   媒人             되엿난            이

na-i        poni            SEYSANG-ey   tye  MAYIN          toyyes-nAn       i

I-NOM  see-CONN  the.world-LOC  that  matchmaker   become-ADN   person

男家에                가    곳       소겨                니라되

NAMKA-ey        ka    kos     soki-e               nilAtoy

man.house-LOC  go   soon   cheat-CONN    say-CONN

‘I see that in the world the one who became a matchmaker went to the man’s house and soon cheatingly lied...’

(1721 Olywuncenpi: 156)

The example in (11) is sourced from Olywuncenpi, published in 1721 during the Joseon Dynasty. This work translates Gu Jun (丘濬)’s Olywuncenpiki (五輦全備記), a comprehensive guide covering various aspects of governance, military strategy, and social organization. Gu Jun was a prominent scholar and official during the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644). Intriguingly, seysangey in (11) can be syntactically interpreted in two different ways. In one interpretation, seysangey can be understood as ‘I know there exists a certain type of person in the world,’ functioning as an adverbial phrase. Alternatively, it can carry a negative connotation, meaning ‘on earth,’ which reflects the speaker’s viewpoint on the event. This dual interpretation in example (11) aligns with the concept of a ‘bridging context’ as described by Heine (2002), where a lexical item with dual interpretations can develop into a discourse marker, as observed in examples (12) and (13).

Examples (12) and (13) are excerpted from Kwiuyseng, which is a representative work of new fiction genre “sinsosel” by Injik Lee in 1908. It exposes the helplessness of the declining noble class, while simultaneously depicting the oppressed class resisting the exploitation and extortion by the ruling class. The term “sinsosel” literally means ‘new novel,’ which is a type of literary fiction that flourished in Korea from the late 19th century to the early 20th century. It marks the transition from classical novels to modern novels. It is also sometimes referred to as “Enlightenment Period fiction.” The word seysang with a locative marker -ey in the formation of seysangey ‘in the world’ can be found in the historical corpus as in (12) and (13), with a comma.

(12)      세상에,      그런   흉악한           년이           잇슬        쥴          누가 아라

seysangey    kulen  hyungakha-n  nyen-i           iss-ul         cyul        nwukA al-a

DM               such   brutal-ADN    bitch-NOM  exit-ADN  NOMZ  who know-Q

‘Oh my gosh, who knows that there exists such a brutal bitch?’

(1906 Kwiuyseng)

Seysangey in (12) means ‘on earth’ in a rhetorical interrogative from a negative viewpoint. This usage reflects the speaker’s disbelief and disdain.

(13)      A: He dared to have taken our money.

B: 응,    셰상에,      참        우슌                 놈,   다   보갯구

ung, syeysangey  cham   wutyu-n               nom  ta    po.kAis-kwu

yes,  DM              truly     ridiculous-ADN  jerk   all  see-INTJ

‘Right, oh my gosh, how ridiculous jerk!’

(1906 Kwiuyseng)

In (13), syeysangey “셰상에” is an orthographic variant of seysangey “세상에.” Syeysangey, meaning ‘on earth’ carries speaker B’s negative underestimation of the guy they talk about. This usage emphasizes the speaker’s negative judgment and emotional reaction. Even, stand-alone seysangey as a discourse marker can be found. The following example demonstrates this usage:

(14)      A: (in a calm voice) ... I was fired!

 B: what?!

 A: I said I got fired. The manager said to me that I’d better work as a sale representative or canvasser than an office worker. The ones that are needed to run around outside a lot…

 B: 세상에

Seysangey

 DM

‘Oh my gosh…’

(2000. Movie Phullantasuuy kay)

 In example (14), speaker A tells B that A was fired, which is surprising news to B. The use of seysangey by speaker B signals the speaker’s stance, primarily conveying a feeling of unexpectedness. Seysangey in (14) functions as a DM and stands alone. As a DM, seysangey is independent of the sentence where it occurs. The prominent feature of discourse markers is their positional flexibility, among other characteristics. The function of seysangey here is to convey an emotional reaction, highlighting the speaker’s surprise and engaging the listener in the conversational exchange. This example illustrates how seysangey operates as a DM in spoken Korean, particularly in informal settings, to convey complex emotional responses succinctly.

4.3. Seysangey as a discourse marker in Present-Day Korean

In Present-Day Korean (PDK), seysangey functions as a discourse marker (DM) with notable flexibility in sentence structure, appearing in left-periphery (LP), right-periphery (RP), and stand-alone positions. This analysis investigates whether seysangey’s usage aligns with previous hypotheses, which LP is associated with subjectivity and RP with intersubjectivity. We explore the usage patterns and contextual variations of seysangey across these positions, examining how it expresses subjective and intersubjective functions through various emotional stances. In the following subsections, examples are presented to illustrate seysangey’s pragmatic roles and the contexts in which it is preferred.

4.3.1. Left-periphery analysis

Among the tokens of seysangey in LP as in [seysangey, STATEMENT], 289 were used for analysis.

(15)

Context

Positive

Negative

Neutral

Total

Tokens

34 (11.8%)

205 (70.9%)

50 (17.3%)

289 (100%)

As indicated in (15), seysangey is the most frequently used in negative contexts, accounting for 70.9% of the cases. This high percentage suggests that speakers often employ seysangey to convey surprise or disbelief in response to negative information.

The next example illustrates a neutral context where seysangey is used. In this situation, Jongnam, a foster daughter, has been praising her mother and is now asking Jaeman how long he has known her mother:

(16)      [Seysangey in LP in the neutral context]

Jongnam: By the way, since when did you know my mom?

Jaeman: ...well... I think it’s been for about 40 years.

Jongnam: 세상에,     그럼    한    동네                  친구셨어요?

seysangey, kulem han    tongney             chinkwu-si-ess-eyo?

DM            so        same  neighborhoold  friend-HON-PST-END.Q

‘Oh my gosh, so you were a neighborhood friend?

(2005. Drama Pyelnan yeca pyelnan namca Ep. 30)

In (16), seysangey is used by Jongnam to express surprise upon learning that Jaeman has known Jongnam’s mother for about 40 years and was a neighborhood friend. This example demonstrates the use of seysangey in a neutral context, where the primary function is to react to unexpected information without attaching a positive or negative sentiment. It highlights the speaker’s astonishment and curiosity, adding an element of engagement to the conversation. 

The next example is from a situation where Hyera and Taejin are having dinner at a restaurant when Taejin handed a shopping bag to Hyera:

(17)      [Seysangey in LP in the positive context]

Hyera: [...] then, I will take it happily. Can I open it?

Taejin: Sure.

Hyera: (She opens it, and it’s a sky blue scarf.)

세상에,        너무    예뻐요.             저 하늘색     좋아하는데!

seysangey,  nemwu  yeypp-eyo.        ce  hanulsay  cohaha-nuntey! 

DM,             so          beautiful-DEC.  I   sky.blue   like-END.INTJ

‘Oh my gosh, it’s so beautiful. I like the sky blue color!’

Taejin: Is it? (smiling) That’s a relief.

(2006. Drama Nay Insaynguy supheysyel Ep.7)

Example (17) reveals that seysangey carries speaker Hyera’s positive attitude towards the unexpected gift. Upon receiving and opening a gift, Hyera’s reaction includes both her delight and astonishment at the beauty of the scarf. This shows how seysangey can be used to convey positive emotions and enhance the expressive quality of speech, emphasizing the speaker’s emotional response.

Example (18) is excerpted from a scene on the morning of Taeja’s wedding, where his mother, Chansun, finds him reeking of alcohol:

(18)      [Seysangey in LP in the negative context]

(The group looks together and sees Taeja, completely disheveled, being carried on Sapal’s back. Chilku follows, running with Taeja’s shoes in hand. Everyone is stunned. Sapal arrives and puts Taeja down, who, drunk, collapses onto the ground.)

Jongchil: Oppa.

Chansun: Taeja, what’s wrong with you?

Sapal: It’s because he’s still sober.

Chansun: 세상에,        이     술냄새.

seysangey,  i       swulnaymsay.

DM             this   alcohol.smell

‘Oh my gosh, this smell of alcohol.’

What have you been doing all night with the guy going to get married? Don’t you know it’s his wedding today?

Chilku: He said he was having a bachelor party the night before the wedding...

(2006. Drama Somunnan chilkongcwu 01–80)

Seysangey in (18) indicates not only Chansun’s surprise but also her negative attitude towards Taeja’s condition. Considering Taeja is about to get married, the smell of alcohol elicits a strong reaction from Chansun, who uses seysangey to express her disapproval and shock. This example underscores the marker’s function in conveying negative evaluations and critical judgments.

Overall, the analysis shows that seysangey in the left-periphery position can convey both subjective and intersubjective functions. For instance, in Example (17), Hyera’s use of seysangey not only reflects her personal delight and surprise but also prompts an interaction with Taejin, demonstrating its role in engaging the listener. This suggests that seysangey’s functions in the left periphery are not strictly limited to the speaker’s subjective experience, as it can also foster a shared understanding or emotional connection between the speaker and listener.

4.3.2. Right-periphery analysis

Next, we analyzed 40 instances of seysangey in RP positions, which occur at the end of a speaker’s turn as in [STATEMENT seysangey]. These instances were selected to investigate the contextual preferences for RP usage of seysangey.

(19)

Context

Positive

Negative

Neutral

Total

Tokens

3 (7.5%)

31 (77.5%)

6 (15.0%)

40 (100%)

As (19) indicates, seysangey in RP is also preferred in negative contexts by 77.5% with 31 tokens among 40. This trend aligns with its usage in the LP, suggesting that seysangey consistently functions to express negative sentiments or critical judgments regardless of its position within the sentence.

The given situation in (20) is that two speakers happen to meet each other by chance in a pharmacy:

(20)      [Seysangey in RP in the neutral context]

Junghwan: (entering) Excuse me, do you have any other ointment? This one isn’t working at all.

—Manager Kang, who was drinking a tonic nearby, stares at Junghwan—

Kang: Excuse me, but are you...?

Junghwan: (turning around) Oh, Manager Kang!

Kang: (simultaneously) Oh, Assistant Han! Wow, it’s been a long time. (shakes hands warmly)

Junghwan: How long has it been? I think the last time we met was at my wedding.

Kang: When did you come back from New York?

Junghwan: It’s been a while. (giving Kang a business card) My office is nearby.

Kang: Is it? 세상에 (also giving a business card to Junghwan)...

Seysangey

DM

‘Oh my gosh’

(2002. Drama Kechimepsnun salang Ep.3)

Kang’s reaction with seysangey expresses that the information on Junghwan’s office location is new to him. Here in (20), seysangey is used to convey surprise in a neutral context, without any strong positive or negative connotations; the DM here highlights the newness of the information to the speaker. This example demonstrates the marker’s flexibility in expressing astonishment in various contexts.

The following example is excerpted from a scene after Byeonghee mentioned that she received a proposal from Dr. Bae, who is considered the top eligible bachelor:

(21)      [Seysangey in RP in the positive context]

(After Byeonghee, a daughter, mentioned she was proposed to.)

Swunam: [...] My heart is pounding.

Junhee: (laughs) Mom, why is your heart pounding?

Swunam: Exactly, how ridiculous.

Byeonghee: Mom hasn’t experienced that because she got married in an arranged marriage.

Swunam: (even clapping hands) Oh, right, yeah. I'm jealous, Byunghee. 

How wonderful must that be 세상에.

seysangey

DM

‘Oh my gosh’

(2006. Yewuya mwehani Ep.10)

Seysangey used in RP as in (21) indicates Swunam’s joy along with admiration for her daughter’s situation. Swunam’s reaction includes both her surprise and happiness, which she expresses with seysangey. This highlights the marker’s role in conveying positive emotional responses and enhancing the expressiveness of the dialogue.

The next example (22) captures a reunion of old classmates at a golf clubhouse, where they are seated around a table:

(22)      [Seysangey in RP in the negative context]

(As expected, Jinhee is pretending to be graceful, and Jangmi looks at Jinhee with a disapproving expression.)

Jinhee: Nami hasn’t aged at all. I recognized her right away. Jangmi, (looking at the double eyelid surgery) ...you’re the same as before.

Jangmi: (suddenly) I can’t recognize you. Hey, you got your whole face done except your mouth. 세상에.

 Seysangey

 DM

 ‘oh my gosh’

Jinhee: What do you mean got it done? I just had a little work done on my nose because of rhinitis. (Jangmi staring intently) And a bit on my eyes because my eyebrows were poking.

(2011. Movie Sunny)

In (22), seysangey expresses Jangmi’s negative judgment on Jinhee’s plastic surgery. The marker emphasizes Jangmi’s shock and disapproval, demonstrating how seysangey can convey negative emotional responses and enhance the speaker’s critical stance in the conversation.

The analysis of seysangey in the right-periphery position similarly shows that it performs both subjective and intersubjective functions. For instance, in Example (21), Sunam’s use of seysangey at the end of her statement conveys her personal emotional response while also inviting her daughter to share in that emotion. This indicates that seysangey’s discourse role is versatile and not strictly bound by its position within the sentence.

 4.3.3. Stand-alone analysis

As previously stated, in our analysis, ‘stand-alone’ instances are defined as cases where seysangey is the only utterance made by a speaker during their turn in a conversation, with no additional phrases or sentences. The cases of stand-alone seysangey selected for analysis are 127 when it is a speaker’s turn to speak.

(23)

Context

Positive

Negative

Neutral

Total

Tokens

4 (3.1%)

85 (67.0%)

38 (30.0%)

127 (100%)

Stand-alone seysangey in (23) is also most frequently used in negative contexts by 67% with 85 cases among 127 cases. This distribution underscores that seysangey as a stand-alone DM is also predominantly employed to express negative emotions or reactions.

The following dialogue is quoted from the moment when Taeyeong and Miryeong are showing gifts to their grandmother:

(24)      [Seysangey in stand-alone position in the neutral context]

(Taeyang and Miryeong are explaining to their grandmother what they brought as gifts for a newborn baby.)

Miryeong: Grandma, look at this hat, a hat...

Grandmother: You bought a good one. It will be useful when coming up to Seoul…

Miryeong: And this is an album...

Grandmother: You bought an album for the baby?

Taeyeong: (smiling) Nowadays people make albums from the first day the baby is born…

Gramma: 세상에...

seysangey

DM

‘oh my gosh’

(2003. Drama Nolansonswuken Ep. 97)

In (24), DM seysangey used in a stand-alone position during a speaker’s turn reflects Grandmother’s surprise at the completely new information given.

The scene in example (25) is set in a hospital, where Mr. Kyung awakens from a coma:

(25)      [Seysangey in stand-alone position in the positive context]

Mr. Kyung’s wife: Honey? Do you know who I am?

Mr. Kyung: (slowly looking around, blinking his eyes)

Mr. Kyung’s wife: (holding hands and going close to the face) Honey? Can you see me? Do you know who I am?

Mr. Kyung: (nodding still)

Mr. Kyung’s wife: 아우, 세상에.

Awu, seysangey

INTJ, DM

‘Oh! my gosh’

(2005. Drama Pwuhwal Ep.18)

In (25), Mr. Kyung’s wife’s use of seysangey reflects her surprise and relief when Mr. Kyung regains consciousness. This stand-alone use highlights seysangey’s ability to convey a mix of emotions, enhancing the depth of the speaker’s immediate reaction. Although “awu” is an interjection expressing an initial reaction of surprise, the phrase “awu, seysangey” is considered standalone because “awu” serves merely as an interjection and does not affect the discourse marker function of seysangey.

The following example is excerpted from a conversation between Eunha, who is about to undergo surgery, and her acquaintance Seoyoung in the hospital room, where Eunha inquires about the well-being of their mutual acquaintances:

(26)      [Seysangey in stand-alone position in the negative context]

Eunha: [...] Except for Woojin... Is everyone... okay? How about Dr. Jeong?

Seoyoung: (expression changes)

Eunha: (looking worriedly at Seoyoung) What’s wrong?

Seoyoung: ... Dr. Jeong passed away. ...it was suicide...

Eunha: 세상에.

seysangey

DM

‘Oh my gosh’

(2003. Drama Lepuleythe Ep.11–16)

In (26), Eunha’s utterance of seysangey conveys her shock and sadness upon hearing about Dr. Jeong’s suicide. This example underscores the marker’s role in expressing strong negative emotions, serving as an immediate and powerful reaction to distressing news.

The stand-alone analysis further confirms that seysangey carries both subjective and intersubjective functions regardless of its syntactic position. When used alone, seysangey often expresses the speaker’s immediate emotional reaction while also drawing the listener into this emotional state. This observation reinforces the idea that seysangey’s discourse functions are not confined to a single category (subjective or intersubjective) nor strictly tied to its position within a sentence but rather operate flexibly across different contexts.

In sum, a distributional analysis of seysangey shows that it is preferred in negative contexts. However, contrary to the theoretical expectations that LP and RP are distinctly associated with subjective and intersubjective functions respectively, our findings suggest that seysangey consistently exhibits both subjective and intersubjective characteristics across different positions, including LP, RP, and stand-alone usage. The data suggests a more complex interaction between context and peripheral functions, emphasizing that seysangey’s discourse roles are adaptable and not rigidly determined by its sentence position.

4.4. Answers to the research questions

The study addresses the evolution of seysang from a concrete noun meaning ‘the world’ into a versatile discourse marker, seysangey, in contemporary Korean. This transformation illustrates the grammaticalization process whereby seysang shifted from a noun describing a physical realm to a discourse marker that expresses various speaker stances, including surprise, admiration, and disapproval.

To answer the first research question, seysang’s journey from a noun to a discourse marker involved shifts from describing the external world to marking subjective reactions, aligning with general grammaticalization patterns.

In response to the second question, seysangey serves multiple pragmatic functions and conveys stances reflecting emotional and evaluative responses, depending on context. The marker’s flexibility—appearing at the left periphery (LP), right periphery (RP), or as a stand-alone utterance—enhances its expressive function and often invites listener engagement.

Lastly, regarding the third question, the grammaticalization of seysang reflects broader patterns of language change in Korean. This process, involving subjectification and intersubjectification, aligns with observed trends in other East Asian languages where nouns and concrete expressions evolve into pragmatic markers that convey speaker attitudes and interactional stances.

  1. Discussion

The developmental course of seysang and its derivative seysangey as a DM in Korean reveals theoretically notable aspects: decategorialization, subjectification, intersubjectification, stance-marking, and metaphoric transfer.

5.1. Decategorialization

Examples (9) and (10) illustrate that seysang has experienced significant semantic and functional changes over time, transitioning from a primarily nominal role to include adverbial functions as well. The transition of seysang from a nominal word to a degree modifier as an adverb in (9) and to an NPI in (10) suggests a reduction in the nominal properties characteristic of seysang over time, a process known as decategorialization (cf. Hopper 1991). Historically, seysang was nominally oriented, frequently accompanied by case-marking particles such as -i, -ey, and -ul, as well as the topic marker -un, all of which are typically attached to nominal expressions. Over the centuries, these nominal properties have gradually diminished in specific contexts. While seysang still retains its nominal form and meaning in many uses, in examples (9) and (10) it has undergone decategorialization and functions as an adverb.

As evidence of decategorialization, seysang in its noun form is no longer able to be modified by adjectives, as is typical for nouns. Consequently, seysang in its adverbial role does not allow the modification of adjectives, as seen in the hypothetical construction 나쁜* 세상 몹쓸 (bad* seysang wicked). Similarly, as an NPI, seysang functions as an adverb and cannot be modified by adjectives, resulting in ungrammatical constructions like 아름다운* 세상 이게 되겠어? (beautiful* seysang is this going to work?).

5.2. Subjectification, intersubjectification and stance marking

The transformation of seysang into DM seysangey illustrates its grammaticalization from a noun through an adverb to a discourse marker. This process involved both subjectification, where the lexeme acquired more subjective meanings, and intersubjectification, where it began to play a role in managing interpersonal relations.

Subjectification refers to the process by which linguistic expressions become increasingly based on the speaker’s internal perspective, attitudes, or beliefs (Traugott 1982, 1995, Traugott & König 1991). Seysang, a society people live in, is a physical domain for a speaker to live and experience things, so it naturally becomes the epistemic domain for a speaker to judge an event. Seysang in (6) means that the people will feel happiness in their hearts. This indicates a shift from a physical world to an emotional state. In addition, seysang is employed to reflect the speaker’s subjective stance toward the intensity or degree of a property. It has the interpretive meanings of ‘very’ in modifying adjectives as in (9) and ‘at all’ as in (10) where an anticipated event does not happen in a way a speaker wants. Through the subjective evaluation of an event or state of affairs, this transfer is made from the physical entity to the abstract entity or subject evaluation.

Intersubjectification, as explained by Traugott (2008), involves the speaker’s awareness of the addressee’s attitudes and beliefs. This concept emphasizes the interactive nature of communication and the shared understanding that arises from it. Du Bois’s (2007) stance triangle further elucidates how speakers use language to position themselves, align with or against others, and evaluate objects of discourse. The stance triangle consists of three components: stance-taking, alignment, and evaluation. When the speaker uses seysangey, the speaker is simultaneously evaluating the event, positioning themselves about the event, and aligning with or against the interlocutor’s statement. This multifaceted process is exemplified in the usage of seysangey to convey not only surprise but also an implicit judgment or reaction to the state of events, as seen in 4.3.

Stance marking is evident in the degree modifier function of seysang, as the speaker uses seysang to emphasize the degree or intensity of quality, reflecting the awareness of the addressee’s attitudes and beliefs. As shown in 4.3, seysangey as a DM serves to highlight the notable and surprising value of the information given, meaning something like ‘I can’t believe it happens in the world’. When the speaker uses seysangey, the speaker is showing his/her interpretive judgment on the given statement by an interlocutor or state of events the speaker faces, exemplified in 4.3.

According to Rhee (2011: 405), stance markers can be categorized into attitudinal, epistemic, emotional, and evidential types. The use of seysangey in section 4.3 aligns with the emotional stance category, where the marker reflects the speaker’s positive, negative, or neutral emotions toward a proposition or event. For example, in negative contexts, seysangey often conveys shock or disapproval, reflecting a negative emotional stance. In positive contexts, it may express delight or amazement, aligning with a positive emotional stance. In neutral contexts, seysangey can indicate mere surprise, showing its role in marking a speaker’s emotional response without strong evaluative connotations. This categorization highlights seysangey’s function as a versatile stance marker, capable of conveying a range of emotional reactions across different contexts.

 5.3. Metaphorical transfer

Heine et al. (1991) have characterized a unidirectional metaphorical shift as “PERSON > OBJECT > PERFORMANCE > SPACE > TIME > QUALITY.” Each category represents a domain of conceptualization, and any category to the right is used to conceptualize those to the left.

The source lexeme (世) sey of seysang denotes ‘human’ and the meaning of ‘human’ in the physical domain. So, seysang is metaphorically likened to the meaning of human-related concepts such as one’s life (PERSON > TIME) and people’s hearts (PERSON > QUALITY). However, seysang itself, meaning ‘the world,’ can also be seen as SPACE. There are meaning changes from the lexical meaning to a degree modifier (‘very’), negative polarity item (NPI, ‘at all’), and an emphatic marker as a DM, expressing surprise or disbelief (SPACE > QUALITY). The semantic change of seysang through the metaphorical transfer in their meanings can be schematized as below:

(26)  
 

The term seysang originally refers to ‘the world where people live’ in a broad sense, which includes all of society. In some contexts, it is used to describe the ‘outer world’ as opposed to secluded environments like temples, monasteries, or prisons. Thus, ‘exclusive’ in the context of seysang can be interpreted as ‘outer world.’ This distinction helps to clarify the different nuances of the term in various metaphorical and grammatical contexts.

  1. Conclusion

This research highlights the semantic and functional evolution of seysang from a concrete noun to a versatile discourse marker in Korean, using grammaticalization as a framework for qualitative analysis. The study integrates corpus data to quantitatively explore seysangey’s usage as a discourse marker in contemporary Korean.

A historical survey shows that the first appearance of seysang is attested in the 15th century. The word consists of two logographs: sey (世) meaning ‘human beings’ and sang (上) meaning ‘top.’ Initially, seysang had a concrete meaning, but over time, its meaning extended to multiple abstracted meanings, including intensifiers such as ‘very’ and ‘at all.’

In the course of semantic change, seysang and its derivative seysangey exhibit subjectification, shifting from a ‘physical’ to an ‘abstract’ meaning. These terms mark the speaker’s stance, encompassing both positive and negative judgments, and express a wide range of emotions such as joy, sadness, anxiety, and disappointment. Seysangey also exhibits intersubjectification, indicating that the speaker signals the addressee to share their evaluation of the situation. Seysangey (literally meaning
‘in the world’) as a DM tends to appear freely in left-periphery (LP), right-periphery (RP), and even in stand-alone positions, often signaling counter-expectation or surprise. The survey reveals that it carries subjective and intersubjective meanings and is frequently used in contexts of both negative and positive emotional responses.

Future research will explore related expressions such as seysangepsi (세상없이) ‘without the world,’ seysangeupseto (세상없어도) ‘even without the world,’ and seysangmoluta (세상모르다) ‘not know the world,’ all of which are related to seysang ‘the world.’

The study offers insights into the dynamics of language change influenced by past contact with a dominant language like Chinese. Such investigations can enhance our appreciation of the complexities involved in language evolution and the role of external influences in shaping the lexicon and grammar of a language.

Abbreviations

ACC = accusative; ADN = adnominal; COND = conditional; CONN = connective;
DEC = declarative; DM = discourse marker; END = sentence-ender; FUT = future;
GEN = genitive; HON = honorific; INTJ = interjection; INST = instrument; LOC = locative; NOM = nominative; PL = plural; PST = past; Q = question; TOP = topic

 

1 I extend my heartfelt gratitude to the developers of the corpora and the search program for their generosity in allowing their use for academic research.

2 Korea’s major historical periods are as follows:

  • Gojoseon: circa 2333 BCE–108 BCE
  • Three Kingdoms Period:
       Goguryeo: 37 BCE–668 CE
       Baekje: 18 BCE–660 CE
       Silla: 57 BCE–935 CE (Unified Silla from 668 CE)
  • Unified Silla: 668 CE–935 CE
  • Goryeo Dynasty: 918 CE–1392 CE, and
  • Joseon Dynasty: 1392 CE–1897 CE
×

About the authors

Hyun Sook Lee

Jangan University

Author for correspondence.
Email: morningdew1020@jangan.ac.kr
ORCID iD: 0009-0004-6712-3141

faculty member at Jangan University. She received her PhD from Hankuk University of Foreign Studies in 2011, Republc of Korea. Her research interests include Corpus Linguistics, Discourse Analysis, Semantics and Pragmatics, with a particular focus on the processes of grammaticalization.

Hwaseong-si, Republic of Korea

References

  1. Adamson, Sylvia M. 2000. A lovely little example: Word order options and category shift in the premodifying string. In Olga Fischer, Anette Rosenbach & Dieter Stein (eds.), Pathways of change: Grammaticalization in English, 39-66. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  2. Beeching, Kate & Ulrich Detges. 2014. Introduction. In Kate Beeching & Ulrich Detges (eds.), Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change, 1-23. Leiden: Brill.
  3. Degand, Liesbeth. 2014. So very fast then: Discourse markers at left and right periphery in spoken French. In Kate Beeching & Ulrich Detges (eds.), Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change, 151-178. Leiden: Brill.
  4. Du Bois, John W. 2007. The stance triangle. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 139-182. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  5. Eom, Sujin & Seongha Rhee. 2021. The rise and fall of a discourse marker: The case of kisil in Korean. East Asian Pragmatics 6 (3). 381-401.
  6. Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 83-101. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  7. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Higashiizumi, Yuko & Keiko Takahashi. 2021. The emergence of the discourse marker sonojitsu ‘as a matter of fact’ in Japanese. East Asian Pragmatics 6 (3). 355-379
  9. Irwin, Mark & Matthew Zisk. 2019. Japanese Linguistics. Tokyo: Asakura Publishing.
  10. Kim, Hansaem. 2005. Hyentaykwuke sayong pinto cosa 2 (A Frequency Analysis of Modern Korean 2). Seoul: National Institute of the Korean Language.
  11. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1965. The evolution of grammatical categories. Diogenes 13 (51). 55-71.
  12. Lee, Ki-Moon. 2006 [1961] Kwukesakaysel (An Outline of the History of the Korean). Seoul: Thaehaksa.
  13. Lee, Woon-Young. 2002. Phyocwun kwuke taysacen yenkwu pwunsek (A study on A complete standard Korean dictionary). Seoul: National Institute of the Korean Language.
  14. Lehmann, Christian. 2015[1995]. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Berlin: Language Science Press.
  15. Narrog, Heiko & Seongha Rhee. 2013. Grammaticalization of space in Korean and Japanese. In Martine Robbeets & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Shared grammaticalization with special focus on the Transeurasian languages, 287-315. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  16. Narrog, Heiko, Seongha Rhee & John Whitman. 2018. Grammaticalization in Japanese and Korean. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), Grammaticalization from a typological perspective, 166-188. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  17. Norman, Jerry. 1988. Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  18. Onodera, Noriko O. 2007. Interplay of (inter)subjectivity and social norm. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 8 (2). 239-267.
  19. Onodera, Noriko O. & Traugott Elizabeth C. 2016. Periphery: Diachronic and cross-linguistics approaches. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 17 (2). 163-177.
  20. Phyocwun kwuke taysacen. 1992. (A complete standard Korean dictionary). Seoul: The National Institute of the Korean Language.
  21. Pangenhaksacen. 2003. (Dialectology Dictionary). Seoul: Thaehaksa.
  22. Rhee, Seongha. 1996. Semantics of verbs and grammaticalization: The development of Korean from a cross-linguistic perspective. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin dissertation. Seoul: Hankook Publisher.
  23. Rhee, Seongha. 2011. Nominalization and stance marking in Korean. In Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds.), Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives, 393-422. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  24. Rhee, Seongha. 2020. From object to text to stance: The case of kyelkwa in Korean. 日本認知言語學會 文集 第20卷 (Papers from the 20th National Conference of the Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association [JCLA] 20). 471-476.
  25. Rhee, Seongha. 2021. From truth to reality to effect: The journey of sasilsang in Korean. East Asian Pragmatics 6 (3). 331-353.
  26. Rhee, Seongha, Reijirou Shibasaki & Xinren Chen (eds.). 2021. Special issue, Grammaticalization of discourse markers in East Asian Languages. East Asian Pragmatics 6 (3).
  27. Shibasaki, Reijirou. 2021. Discourse markers in the making: Pragmatic difference of jijitsujoo from jijitsu in Modern through Present Day Japanese. Special issue, Grammaticalization of discourse markers in East Asian Languages. East Asian Pragmatics 6 (3). 303-329.
  28. Higashiizumi, Yuko & Reijirou Shibasaki (eds.) in preparation. The Emergence of Pragmatic Markers from Chinese Compounds in Chinese, Japanese and Korean: Perspectives from East Asian Languages and beyond. Leiden: Brill.
  29. Sohn, Ho-min. 2001[1999]. The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  30. Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Winfred P. Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel (eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics, 245-271. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  31. Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1995. Subjectification and grammaticalisation. In Dieter Stein & Susan Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives, 31-54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  32. Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2008. Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 19-50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  33. Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2014. Intersubjectification and clause periphery. In Lieselotte Brems, Lobke Ghesquière & Freek Van de Velde (eds.), Intersubjectivity and intersubjectification in grammar and discourse, 7-27. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  34. Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Ekkehard König. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Elizabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization vol 1, 189-218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Statistics

Views

Abstract: 160

PDF (English): 122

Dimensions

Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

PlumX


Copyright (c) 2024 Lee H.S.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies