All Issue

2026 Vol.41, Issue 4 Preview Page

Research Article

28 February 2026. pp. 451-469
Abstract
This study argues that Korean addressee honorific sentence-final endings, such as -supnita and -yo, constitute an obligatory grammatical category. Unlike previous studies, it focuses on grammatical categoricity within Slobin’s “Thinking for Speaking” framework. While indexicality-based approaches explain interactional meanings, they often overlook why Korean speakers must determine relations prior to an utterance. This study demonstrates that the grammatical obligatoriness of sentence-final marking forces speakers to establish a ‘relational boundary’ before producing an utterance. The alternation between endings is analyzed as a grammatically constrained reorientation of relational attention, rather than a purely pragmatic strategy. By introducing BOUNDARY and ΔBOUNDARY, this study accounts for these alternations as a recalculation of relational judgment. A comparison with English highlights Korean’s typological significance, where relational judgment is grammatically mandated.
References
  1. 박지순. 2014. 한국어 상대높임법 실현의 영향 요인 연구. 새국어교육, 98. 290-324.10.15734/koed..98.201403.290
  2. 안현정, 권연진. 2014. Honorific Expressions and Registers in Korean. 인문과학연구, 41. 강원대학교 인문과학연구소, 573-592.
  3. 이익섭, 채완. 1999. 국어문법론강의. 서울: 학연사.
  4. 정경재. 2016. 20세기 구어 자료에 나타난 명령형 어미의 실현 양상 변화. 한국어학, 72. 227-255.
  5. 홍종선, 김서형. 2016. 국어과 교재의 상대 높임 화계 설정과 구어 현실. 국어교육학연구, 51.3, 47-68.
  6. Boroditsky, L. 2001. Does Language Shape Thought?: Mandarin and English Speakers’ Conceptions of Time. Cognitive Psychology 43.1, 1-22. 10.1006/cogp.2001.0748
  7. Brown, R. and Gilman, A. 1960. The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity. In Style and Language, T.A. Sebeok (ed.), 252-282. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.1515/9783110805376.252
  8. Brown, L. 2015. Revisiting “polite” -yo and “deferential” -Supnita Speech Style Shifting in Korean from the Viewpoint of Indexicality. Journal of Pragmatics 79, 43-59.10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.009
  9. Choi, S. and Lantolf, J. P. 2008. Representation and Embodiment of Meaning in L2 Communication: Motion Events in the Speech and Gesture of Advanced L2 Korean and L2 English Speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 30.2, 191-224. 10.1017/S0272263108080315
  10. Choi, Y. S. 2011. The Obligatory Marking of the Hearer’s Social Status in Korean and its Consequences for L2 Acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics 22.4, 823-855.
  11. Jakobson, R. 1959. On Linguistic Aspects of Translation. In R. A. Brower (ed.), On Translation. 232-239. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674731615.c18
  12. Lee, J. and Brown, L. 2022. Honorifics in the Marketplace: A Multimodal Indexical Analysis. Korean Linguistics 18.1, 76-119. 10.1075/kl.20007.lee
  13. Leech, G. 2007. Politeness: Is there an East-West Divide? Journal of Politeness Research 3.2, 167-200.10.1515/PR.2007.009
  14. Levinson, S. C. 1996. Language and Space. Annual Review of Anthropology 25, 353-382. 10.1146/annurev.anthro.25.1.353
  15. Levinson, S. C. 2003. Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity, Vol. 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613609
  16. Lucy, J. A. 1997. Linguistic Relativity. Annual Review of Anthropology 26, 291-312.10.1146/annurev.anthro.26.1.291
  17. Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  18. Phillips, W. and Boroditsky, L. 2003. Can Quirks of Grammar Affect the Way You Think? Grammatical Gender and Object Concepts. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Cognitive Science Society 25.25, 928-933.
  19. Silverstein, M. 1976. Shifters, Linguistic Categories, and Cultural Description. In K. H. Basso and H. A. Selby (ed.), Meaning in Anthropology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 11-55.
  20. Silverstein, M. 2003. Indexical Order and the Dialectics of Sociolinguistic Life. Language & Communication 23, 193-229.10.1016/S0271-5309(03)00013-2
  21. Slobin, D. I. 1996. From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.” In J. J. Gumperz and S. C. Levinson (ed.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. 70-96. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
  22. Slobin, D. I. 2003. Language and Thought Online: Cognitive Consequences of Linguistic Relativity. In D. Gentner and S. Goldin-Meadow (ed.), Language in Mind. 157-192. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/4117.003.0013
  23. Slobin, D. I. 2004. The Many Ways to Search for a Frog: Linguistic Typology and the Expression of Motion Events. In S. Strőmqvist and L. Verhoeven (ed.), Relating Events in Narrative: 2. Typological and Contextual Perspectives, 219 -257. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  24. Sohn, H. 1999. The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  25. Sohn, H. 2013. Topics in Korean Language and Linguistics. Seoul: Korea University Press.10.978.897641/8326
  26. Strauss, S. and Eun, J. O. 2005. Indexicality and Honorific Speech Level Choice in Korean. Linguistics 43.3, 611-651.10.1515/ling.2005.43.3.611
  27. Talmy, L. 1991. Path to Realization: A Typology of Event Conflation. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society: General Session and Parasession on The Grammar of Event Sturucture. 480-519.10.3765/bls.v17i0.1620
Information
  • Publisher :The Modern Linguistic Society of Korea
  • Publisher(Ko) :한국현대언어학회
  • Journal Title :The Journal of Studies in Language
  • Journal Title(Ko) :언어연구
  • Volume : 41
  • No :4
  • Pages :451-469