This article was downloaded by: [University of Arizona]On: 07 August 2012, At: 21:58Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Australian Journal ofLinguisticsPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cajl20

From purposive tomanner in Korean: Asemantic‐pragmatic changeof subjectificationJae Jung Song aa Linguistics Section School of Languages,University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, NEWZEALAND E-mail:

Version of record first published: 14 Aug 2008

To cite this article: Jae Jung Song (1996): From purposive to manner inKorean: A semantic‐pragmatic change of subjectification, Australian Journal ofLinguistics, 16:2, 209-227

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07268609608599538

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or makeany representation that the contents will be complete or accurate orup to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses

should be independently verified with primary sources. The publishershall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand,or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 2

1:58

07

Aug

ust 2

012

© Australian Journal of Linguistics 16 (1996), 209-227. Printed in Australia

FROM PURPOSIVE TO MANNER IN KOREAN:A SEMANTIC-PRAGMATIC CHANGE OFSUBJECTIFICATION

Jae Jung Song

ABSTRACT

On the basis of a detailed comparison between the -ke derived manner adverband the -ke marked subordinate clause of purpose in Korean, this papersuggests that the MANNER function (or expressive function) has developedfrom the PURPOSIVE function (or propositional/textual function), thusproviding evidence for one of the three tendencies identified in Traugott's(1989) theory of semantic-pragmatic change: meanings tend to becomeincreasingly based in the speaker's subjective belief state/attitude toward theproposition. By describing how the speaker's subjective evaluation of asituation may initially have been generated pragmatically, the paper alsoshows that it is pragmatic strengthening that is responsible for thedevelopment in question.

* I am grateful to Barry Blake, who read, and made useful comments on, an earlier draftof this paper. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the AustralianLinguistics Conference (La Trobe University, Melbourne, July 1994); thanks are dueto members of the audience for comments, and suggestions, especially AnthonyDiller, Cliff Goddard and John Newman. I am also indebted to Young Keun Ko(Seoul National University) for discussing the diachrony of the form -ke in Koreanwith me. Finally, I have benefited from the useful comments, and suggestionsprovided by the two anonymous AJL reviewers. None of these scholars areresponsible for any errors of fact or judgement which may still remain in the paper.The abbreviations used in the glosses are as follows:ACC = Accusative, ALL = Allative, DAT = Dative, GEN = Genitive, HON =Honorific, IND = Indicative, NEG = Negative, NMZ = Nominalizer, NOM =Nominative, OPT = Optative, PF = Phonological Filler, PST = Past, PURP =Purposive.

209

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 2

1:58

07

Aug

ust 2

012

JAE JUNG SONG

1. INTRODUCTION

In Korean, manner adverbs are formed productively by suffixing -Jce toadjectives. In (1), for example, the suffix is attached to the adjectivechincalha- '(to be) courteous' to form the manner adverb chincalha-ke'courteously'.

(1) ki ai-ka chincalha-ke noin-eke mal-ilthe child-NOM courteous-KE old:man-DAT speech-ACC

ha-oss-tado-PST-IND'The child talked courteously to an old man'

Interestingly enough, the same form -ke is also used to mark subordinateclauses of purpose, as in:1

(2)a. kiho-ka amani-ka o-si-ke csnhwa-lilKeeho-NOM mother-NOM come-HON-KE phone-ACC

kgl-oss-tadial-PST-IND'Keeho phoned to get his mother to come' or '(lit.) Keeho madea phone call in order that his mother would come'

b. pisa-ka sacaij-ii sinim-il at-kesecretary-NOM boss-GEN trust-ACC gain-KE

yolsimhi iil-il ha-ess-tadiligently work-ACC do-PST-IND'The secretary worked diligently in order that she would be trustedby her boss'

The question thus arises as to whether or not it is a coincidence that inKorean, the adverb forming suffix (or the MANNER function) and thepurposive marker (or the PURPOSIVE function) share the same form. If not,how are these two seemingly different grammatical elements (or functions)related to each other?

There, in fact, seems to be crosslinguistic evidence in support of a closerelationship between the MANNER and PURPOSIVE function. For instance,Heine (1990) argues on the basis of Ik and Kanuri, both Nilo-Saharanlanguages, that the MANNER function arises out of the PURPOSIVEfunction (albeit via the CAUSE/REASON function).2 The suffix -ifi in Ik has

1 Incidentally, in (2a) the subject of the subordinate clause is different from that of themain clause, while in (2b) the understood subject of the subordinate clause iscoreferential with the subject of the main clause.

2 Heine (1990:131) and Heine, Claudi and Hünnemeyer (1991:151) propose thefollowing elaborate grammaticalization chain:

210

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 2

1:58

07

Aug

ust 2

012

FROM PURPOSIVE TO MANNER IN KOREAN

a purposive function among others (e.g. dative, benefactive, allative, etc.).The suffix is also used 'as a derivative device to adverbialize verbs' (Heine1990:134), as in:

(3) tdda qiL-i-kespeak be:strong-OPT-DAT'He speaks strongly'

Similarly, one of the functions of the suffix -ro in Kanuri is purposive (itsother functions being allative, causal, etc.). The same suffix is used to deriveadverbs from adjectives (Heine 1990:137; cf. Lukas 1937:158).

(4) divi 'bad' divi-ro 'badly'

Heine (1990:146) does not actually discuss how the MANNER functiondeveloped from the PURPOSIVE function in these Nilo-Saharan languages,except for noting that the development 'can be interpreted as being due to oneand the same process whereby "abstract" meanings are conceptualized interms of more "concrete" meanings - with the effect that the morphology usedto express the latter is extended to be used for the former as well'. Therefore,metaphor is claimed to be responsible for the development (Heine 1990:131;also see Heine, Claudi, and Hiinnemeyer 1991.-150-154).3

ALLATIVE

BENEFACTIVE PLACE

PURPOSIVE DATIVE

POSSESSION TIME

CAUSE/REASON CONDITION/

MANNER/

CLAUSE EMBEDDING

Obviously, this grammaticalization chain does not go well with the direct shift fromPURPOSIVE to MANNER proposed for Korean in (5) below, withCAUSE/REASON being skipped over. However, it is possible that PURPOSIVEmakes a binary division into MANNER and CAUSE/REASON, as has, in fact, beensuggested in Song (forthcoming) on the basis of the development of MANNER fromthe lexical verb GIVE in Khmer, Thai, and Vietnamese. Also, for evidence insupport of the development of causative (which may be subsumed under CAUSE)from PURPOSIVE, see Song (1996:73-109).

3 Heine (1990) does not discuss why the direction of change is from PURPOSIVE toMANNER (and not the converse). However, on the basis of what he and hisassociates (1991:156-158) call the 'discovery procedure' for establishing relativedegrees of conceptual/semantic grammaticalization, PURPOSIVE should be regardedas more concrete or less abstract than MANNER, because '[i]f two grammaticalcategories differ from one another only by the fact that one typically implies somehuman participant whereas the other implies an inanimate participant, then the latter

211

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 2

1:58

07

Aug

ust 2

012

JAE JUNG SONG

In this paper, I will propose in common with Heine (1990:131) that inKorean, the manner adverb forming suffix -ke has arisen out of the purposivemarker, as schematized in (5):4

(5) PURPOSIVE > MANNER

However, I will suggest that the shift in (5) reflects what Traugott (1986:548)refers to as 'increasing subjectivity of evaluation'. The purposive marker, thefunction of which is both propositional and textual, has assumed the functionof producing manner adverbs, which are expressive of the speaker'ssubjective evaluation of situations or eventualities (Traugott's Tendency III).Metaphor, which typically deals with the relationship between cognitivecategories or domains, cannot adequately account for this kind of increasingsubjectivity of evaluation (e.g. Traugott 1989:49-50). Furthermore, as Givon(1994:318) points out, 'the metaphor hypothesis as it currently stands...doesnot supply an actual mechanism for grammaticalization'. To put it differently,how does the shift in (5) actually take place? Is it the case that the speakerestablishes a conceptual link between the two categories and (suddenly) startsto exploit the more concrete one to express the less concrete? I will, therefore,describe how the speaker's subjective evaluation may initially have beengenerated pragmatically, thereby suggesting how the development ofMANNER from PURPOSIVE in Korean may have been set in motion. I willthen conclude that pragmatic strengthening is the 'prime driver' of the shift in(5) (cf. Traugott 1988, 1989).

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In section 2,1 will outlineTraugott's theory of semantic-pragmatic change. In section 3,1 will present adetailed comparison between the -ke derived manner adverb and the -kemarked subordinate clause of purpose in Korean: their similarities anddifferences. In section 4, I will argue for the shift from PURPOSIVE toMANNER on the basis of section 3, and also put forward an account thereofin light of Traugott's theory. In the final section, I will provide a summary ofthe major points of the paper.

is more grammaticalized' (Heine, Claudi, and Hünnemeyer 1991:156).PURPOSIVE, as in (i), normally presupposes some volitional, controlling, activehuman agent and activity, whereas MANNER, as in (ii), does not. Compare:(i) The girl went out in order to play with her friends(ii) The month passed quicklyThe event denoted by (i) is a relatively concrete one, since it involves humanparticipants, whereas that denoted by (ii) is an abstract one in that its sole participantis an abstract entity. To put it differently, (i) is 'more immediately accessible tohuman experience' than is (ii) (Heine 1990:143).

4 The purposive marker -ke may have developed out of the Middle Korean dative casemarker -ke/-kii (K.M. Lee 1972:171), although I am not aware of any conclusivehistorical evidence in support of this relationship (Y.K. Ko, personalcommunication; cf. S.W. Lee 1958).

212

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 2

1:58

07

Aug

ust 2

012

FROM PURPOSIVE TO MANNER IN KOREAN

2. TRAUGOTT'S THEORY OF SEMANTIC-PRAGMATIC CHANGE

As a preface to the main discussion, I need to review Traugott's theory ofsemantic-pragmatic change in brief. In this theory, it is proposed thatmeanings with largely propositional (or ideational a la Halliday and Hasan1976) content can assume either textual (i.e. cohesion-making) andexpressive (i.e. presuppositional and other pragmatic) meanings, or both, inthe following order (Traugott 1982):

(6) propositional > ((textual) > (expressive))

This direction of semantic-pragmatic change is further articulated inTraugott's later work (1989,1990; also see Traugott and Konig 1991:208-209), wherein the following three tendencies are identified:

(7) Tendency I: Meanings based in the external described situation >meanings based in the internal (evaluative/perceptive/cognitive)described situation.

Tendency II: Meanings based in the external or internal describedsituation > meanings based in the textual and metalinguisticsituation.

Tendency III: Meanings tend to become increasingly based in thespeaker's subjective belief state/attitude toward the proposition.

Thus, semantic-pragmatic change is looked upon as the shift from 'meaningsgrounded in more or less objectively identifiable extralinguistic situations tomeanings grounded in text-making to meanings grounded in the speaker'sattitude to or belief about what is said' (Traugott and Konig 1991:189; alsosee Traugott 1989:35).

Tendencies I and II can indeed be seen as metaphorical transfers based onsimilarities. For example, English shall < *sculan, a shift from owingconcrete debts such as money (i.e. external) to owing certain behaviors (i.e.internal), can be regarded as a metaphorical transfer from more concrete orless abstract to less concrete or more abstract (i.e. Tendency I); or a shift froma concrete meaning such as 'set/stand on' (insist denoting an externaldescribed situation) to a speech-act verb (insist in the metalinguistic sense of'assert something vehemently') can also be understood to 'be a metaphoricaltransfer from the standing or setting of something on something to being firmabout a proposition' (i.e. Tendency II). But Tendency III, which captures thedevelopment of less to more subjective meanings (or subj edification), cannotadequately or fully be explained as such a metaphorical transfer.5 In English,

5 Note that Traugott (1989:36) chooses to regard the parameter of subjectification as acontinuum, i.e. from weakly subjective to strongly subjective, rather than as apolarity phenomenon, i.e. objective as opposed to subjective (e.g. Lyons 1982),

213

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 2

1:58

07

Aug

ust 2

012

JAE JUNG SONG

for instance, the adverb apparently is attested in the sixteenth century as asentential adverbial, meaning 'to all appearances' (i.e. a weakly subjectivemeaning), and then in the nineteenth century it began to express the speaker'sassessment of the validity of the proposition, as it does in Present DayEnglish (i.e. a strongly subjective meaning) (Traugott 1989:47). But asTraugott (1989:49-50) rightly asks, '[i]n what sense can we really say...thatthe strongly subjective epistemic meaning of apparently is a metaphor basedon the weakly epistemic one?' In fact, the shift from less to more subjective'has little of the analogical mapping from one conceptual domain to anotherthat is characteristic of metaphor.' Rather, it is the case that from weakepistemicity one implicates one's own subjective assessment of the situation;so, if I say that To all appearances Xis Y, then I can implicate that it is clearto me that X is Y. In other words, the development in question can better besubsumed under the conventionalizing of conversational implicatures (e.g.Grice's (1975) second maxim of quantity, Atlas and Levinson's (1981)principle of informativeness, Horn's (1984) R-principle, Sperber andWilson's (1986) principle of relevance; also see Traugott (1989:50-51), Geisand Zwicky (1971), and Blakemore (1987)). This leads Traugott (1989:48-51) to suggest the process of pragmatic strengthening (or a type of metonymyin Traugott's (1988:409-413) view) as the most plausible explanation forTendency III. Pragmatic inferences associated with expressions come to bereinforced by frequent use to the extent that these inferences become semanticmeanings (Traugott and Konig 1991:196). Pragmatic strengthening thusrepresents 'strategic negotiation of speaker-hearer interaction, and articulationof speaker attitude', as opposed to metaphoric process, which typically relatesto representation of cognitive categories (Traugott 1989:51).

3. THE MANNER ADVERB AND SUBORDINATE CLAUSE OFPURPOSE IN KOREAN

In this section, I will examine certain similarities and differences between the-ke derived manner adverb and the -ke marked subordinate clause of purposein Korean. But I will first compare the adverb forming suffix -ke with theother adverb forming suffix -i with a view to understanding the former better.

In Korean, there are basically three major groups of manner adverbs(Lukoff 1982:209-211, 265-266, Sohn 1994:86-95,405-408). First, adverbssuch as cal 'nicely', maku 'carelessly', etc. are called 'primitive', since theyare non-derived. In contrast, the other two groups can be characterized as'derived', one of which includes those adverbs that are built on adjectives byaddition of the suffix under discussion -ke, e.g. kil-ke ' long', ppali-ke

since it is not clear whether true objectivity really exists (especially in the epistemicdomain) (cf. Palmer (1986), and Langacker (1985)).

214

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 2

1:58

07

Aug

ust 2

012

FROM PURPOSIVE TO MANNER IN KOREAN

'quickly', pappi-ke 'busily', hin(ha)-ke 'commonly', etc. The other derivedgroup consists of adverbs containing the adverb forming suffix -i, e.g. hin-hi'commonly', kil-i 'long', ppal-li 'quickly', papp-i 'busily', etc.

There are significant differences between the two derived types of adverb.First, the use of the -ke suffix is extremely productive, as opposed to theother type of adverb derivation. Basically, most -i suffixed adverbs havecorresponding -ke suffixed counterparts, but the reverse does not seem tohold (cf. Sohn 1994:406). For instance, adjectives such as timil- '(to be) rare,uncommon', ttakttakha- '(to be) hard', coh- '(to be) good', chup- '(to be)cold', tap- '(to be) warm', putihp- '(to be) soft', yeppi- '(to be) pretty', etc.cannot take on the -i suffix to form adverbs. They must instead undergo the-ke suffixation.

Secondly, there are some morphophonemic changes of the adjectiveoccurring with respect to the -i suffixation, whereas there is none with respectto the -ke suffixation. Further, the morpheme -i has at least three allomorphs,i.e. l-il, /-hi/, and /-li/ (Lukoff 1982:210). On the other hand, the morpheme-ke is always realized as /-ke/.

Finally, the suffix -ke does not seem to be a full-fledged derivationalmorpheme in that the so-called honorific suffix -si, which is syntacticallyconditioned, can potentially occur between it and the adjective, as in:

(8) nalssi-ka chup-sss halapaci-kkesoweather-NOM cold:is-because grandfather-HON/NOM

ttattisha-si-ke os-il ip-si-ass-tawarm-HON-KE clothes-ACC put:on-HON-PST-IND'Because the weather was cold, Grandfather got dressed warmly'

The honorific suffix -si in Korean is known to be used only when the subjectof the clause refers to someone who deserves the speaker's deference(Shibatani 1973, Yang 1974, Gerdts 1990, Song 1995). In (2.a) renumberedas (9), for example, the honorific suffix, which is motivated by the subjectNP of the subordinate clause smani-ka, is attached to the 'lower' verb.

(9) kiho-ka amani-ka o-si-ke canhwa-lilKeeho-NOM mother-NOM come-HON-KE phone-ACC

kal-sss-tadial-PST-IND'Keeho phoned to get his mother to come' or '(lit.) Keeho made aphone call in order that his mother would come'

Thus, it comes as a surprise that the derived adverb in (8) can carry thehonorific suffix, although not all speakers accept (8).6 In contrast, the

6 Those who find (8) to be odd will prefer (i) below, wherein the adverb in questionlacks the honorific suffix:

215

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 2

1:58

07

Aug

ust 2

012

JAE JUNG SONG

honorific suffix never appears between the adjective and the suffix -i,indicating that -i is a full-fledged derivational suffix. This particular pointmust be looked at in light of the two other differences between the -i and -kesuffixes that I have already discussed. The -ke suffix, as opposed to the -isuffix, is extremely productive. There are no morphophonemic changesinvolved in the -ke derivation. All this suggests strongly that the -kederivation is a grammatical device more recently introduced into Koreangrammar than the i- derivation.7 Indeed, the presence of the honorific suffixwithin the -ke derived adverb may well be a vestige of its syntactic origin.8

The possibility of the manner adverb forming suffix -ke having a syntacticorigin is further strengthened by the fact that (8) is susceptible of both mannerand purposive interpretations. So, when it is interpreted to contain asubordinate clause of purpose, (8) means: 'Because the weather was cold,Grandfather got dressed in order to be warm'. Note that in this case, thehonorific suffix -si within the ADJECTIVE + -ke sequence clearly is inducedby the understood subject, which is coreferential with the subject of the mainclause, halapaci 'grandfather'. Similarly, (1) renumbered as (10)

potentially is ambiguous between the manner and purposive readings.

(10) ki ai-ka chincalha-ke noin-eke mal-ilthe child-NOM courteous-KE old:man-DAT speech-ACC

ha-sss-tado-PST-IND'The child talked courteously to an old man' or 'The child talked toan old man in order to be courteous'

Not all sequences of ADJECTIVE + -ke are, however, ambiguous. Forinstance, (11) can only be understood to contain a subordinate clause ofpurpose precisely because of the presence of the adjunct phrase hakkyo-e,which can never be associated with the main clause.

(i) nalssi-ka chup- s halap ci-kkes ttattisha-keweather-NOM cold:is-because grandfather-HON/NOM warm-KEos-il ip-si- ss-taclothes-ACC put:on-HON-PST-IND'Because the weather was cold, Grandfather got dressed warmly'

7 K.M. Lee (1972:152) reports that the -i adverb derivation was productive in lateMiddle Korean (15th century - 16th century) and became non-productive in ModernKorean (early 17th century - late 19th century) (cf. S.N. Lee (1981:123-138, 384-389) on adverb derivation in Middle Korean). Unfortunately, K.M. Lee and S.N. Leedo not discuss the -ke derivation at all. Cf. Note 12.

8 Sohn (1994:72, 91) also thinks that the adverb forming suffix -ke is actually thepurposive marker or what he calls the clausal suffix -ke, although he does notelaborate on their relationship at all.

216

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 2

1:58

07

Aug

ust 2

012

FROM PURPOSIVE TO MANNER IN KOREAN

(11) ki hakserj-i hakkyo-e nic-ke nic-cam41the student-NOM school-ALL late-KE late-sleep-ACC

ca-ass-tasleep-PST-IND'The student slept in so that she would be late for school'

This points to certain grammatical differences that exist between the -kederived manner adverb and the -ke marked subordinate clause of purpose.Compare (12) with (13):

(12) kyosu-nim-kkesa nole-lil ccalp-keprofessor-HON-HON/NOM song-ACC short-KE

puli-si-ass-tasing-HON-PST-IND"The professor sang a song briefly'

(13) kyosu-nim-kkesa nole-ka ccalp-keprofessor-HON-HON/NOM song-NOM short-KE

ha-si-ass-tado-HON-PST-IND'The professor did something in order that her song would beshort'

In (12), wherein the NP nole 'song' appears with the accusative case markerHI (as the object NP of the predicate puli- 'to sing'), the sequence ccalp-ke'short-KE' only has the function of modifying the predicate.9 In (13),wherein the same NP appears with the nominative case marker, the samesequence ccalp-ke must only be understood to be a subordinate clause ofpurpose; the NP in question is the subject of that subordinate clause. Thus, ifccalp-ke is intended to modify the manner in which the professor sang a song(e.g. the professor took a short time to sing a song), only (12), not (13), isgrammatical.

This difference can further be evidenced by the fact that the sentence in(14) can follow (13), but not (12).

(14) kitena nole-ka ccalp-ci-an-ass-tabut song-NOM short-NMZ-NEG-PST-IND'but the song was not short'

9 The sequence ccalp-ke in (12) cannot be interpreted as a subordinate clause ofpurpose, because it lacks the subject NP. Even if it were interpreted to involve anunderstood subject NP coreferential with the subject NP kyosu-nim-kkes , (12)would express an extremely unlikely situation: 'The professor sang a song in orderto be (physically) short'.

217

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 2

1:58

07

Aug

ust 2

012

JAE JUNG SONG

The manner adverb contained in (12) will be incompatible with (14), which ina way negates the manner of the professor's action. On the other hand, (13)should never be rendered ungrammatical when followed by (14), which willonly negate the former's subordinate clause of purpose (cf. Karttunen 1971).This is indeed the case, as shown in (15) and (16).

(15) *kyosu-nim-kkes9 nole-Hl ccalp-keprofessor-HON-HON/NOM song-ACC short-KE

puli-si-ass-ta kifana nole-kasing-HON-PST-IND but song-NOM

ccalp-ci-an-ass-tashort-NMZ-NEG-PST-IND'*The professor sang a song briefly, but it was not short'

(16) kyosu-nim-kkesa nole-ka ccalp-keprofessor-HON-HON/NOM song-NOM short-KE

ha-si-sss-ta kitena nole-kado-HON-PST-IND but song-NOM

ccaip-ci-an-ass-tashort-NMZ-NEG-PST-IND'The professor did something in order that her song would beshort, but it was not short'

Further, the -ire adverb can be coordinated with 'primitive' or -i adverbs,whereas the same is not true of the -ke subordinate clause of purpose. If thesequence ccalp-ke in (12) were a subordinate clause, it could not becoordinated with the other types of adverb, but in fact it can, as in (17) and(18) (cf. (19) and (20)). In (17), the sequence ccalp-ke is coordinated withcal, a primitive adverb, while in (18) it is coordinated with coyon-hi, an -iadverb. This suggests strongly that the sequence ccalp-ke in (12) is anythingbut a subordinate clause of purpose.

(17) kyosu-nim-kkesa nole-lil cal kilikoprofessor-HON-HON/NOM song-ACC nicely and

ccalp-ke puli-si-ass-tashort-KE sing-HON-PST-IND'The professor sang a song nicely and briefly'

(18) kyosu-nim-kkesa nole-lil coyon-hiprofessor-HON-HON/NOM song-ACC quiet-I

kiliko ccalp-ke puli-si-ass-taand short-KE sing-HON-PST-IND'The professor sang a song quietly and briefly'

218

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 2

1:58

07

Aug

ust 2

012

FROM PURPOSIVE TO MANNER IN KOREAN

On the other hand, the same sequence ccalp-ke in (13), being a subordinateclause of purpose, can never be coordinated with a primitive adverb or an -iadverb, as illustrated in:

(19) *kyosu-nim-kkes9 nole-ka cal kilikoprofessor-HON-HON/NOM song-NOM nicely and

ccalp-ke ha-si-gss-tashort-KE do-HON-PST-IND'*The professor did something in order that her song would benicely and short'

(20) *kyosu-nim-kkes3 nole-ka coyoq-hiprofessor-HON-HON/NOM song-NOM quiet-I

kiliko ccalp-ke ha-si-ass-taand short-KE do-HON-PST-IND'*The professor did something in order that her song would bequietly and short'

This makes it clear that the sequence ccalp-ke in (12) is indeed an adverb,whereas the same sequence in (13) is not. Said differently, the suffix -ke in(12) is used to form the manner adverb ccalp-ke (i.e. the MANNERfunction), whereas in (13), it has the function of signaling the subordinateclause of purpose (i.e. the PURPOSIVE function).

Now, how can it be explained that the same form -ke is used for bothMANNER and PURPOSIVE functions to the extent that the sequence ofADJECTIVE + -ke can potentially be ambiguous between the manner andpurposive interpretations? Further, how can it also be explained that thesyntactically conditioned (or 'subject induced') honorific suffix canpotentially appear inside the -ke adverb, just as it does in the -ke subordinateclause of purpose?

4. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ADVERB FORMING SUFFIX -ke:TENDENCY IE

Unfortunately, there are not any historical data available that can throw lighton the relationship between the -ke derived manner adverb and the -kemarked subordinate clause of purpose (K.M. Lee 1972, S.N. Lee 1981,Y.K. Ko 1983 and personal communication). Nevertheless, I will seek toexplain the similarities and differences between these two by suggesting thatthe MANNER function has developed from the PURPOSIVE function, asschematized in:

(5) PURPOSIVE > MANNER

Consider (10) again, which is ambiguous in two ways:

219

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 2

1:58

07

Aug

ust 2

012

JAE JUNG SONG

(10) ki ai-ka chincolha-ke noin-eke mal-ilthe child-NOM courteous-KE old:man-DAT speech-ACC

ha-ass-tado-PST-IND'The child talked courteously to an old man' or 'The child talked toan old man in order to be courteous'

Originally, the element -ice may only have been the purposive marker, whichsignals the subordinate clause of purpose. That is to say that (21) is what mayhave been the original structure of (10):10

(21) sl[ki ai-ka S2[(M ai-ka) chinc9lha-ke]S2

the child-NOM (the child-NOM) courteous-PURP

noin-eke mal-il ha-sss-ta]si

old:man-DAT speech-ACC do-PST-IND

It is this very purposive marker that the manner adverb forming suffix -kelater descended from.

The 'reconstructed' structure in (21) can now show why (10) potentially issusceptible of both manner and purposive interpretations. I submit that thepurposive meaning is understood as a continuation of the original meaning ofthe form -ke, whereas the adverb meaning is regarded as an addition to theform -ke(cf. Bybee and Pagliuca 1986:117 on a similar situation in the'future' markers in English). To put it in a different way, the development ofMANNER from PURPOSIVE has not given rise to 'an across-the-board re-semanticization of -ke (Hopper 1991:29). The retention of the originalmeaning of -ke in (10) may not, in fact, be unexpected, as Hopper (1991:22)notes under what he calls the Principle of Persistence: 'When a formundergoes grammatic[al]ization...some traces of its original...meanings tendto adhere to it'.

The original structure of the main clause of (8), repeated below, can be'reconstructed' in a similar fashion, as in (22):

(8) nalssi-ka chup-ass halapaci-kkessweather-NOM cold:is-because grandfather-HON/NOM

1 0 The subject NP of the subordinate clause is omitted (i.e. PRO) when it iscoreferential with that of the main clause. This may also have been a secondaryfactor that contributed to the shift from PURPOSIVE to MANNER in Korean. Thepresence of the subject NP of the subordinate clause of purpose, be it in full orpronominal form, would have made it difficult for the shift to take place.Incidentally, the surface structure of (10) with the second reading, 'The child talked toan old man in order to be courteous', will be more or less equivalent to the structurepostulated in (21).

220

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 2

1:58

07

Aug

ust 2

012

FROM PURPOSIVE TO MANNER IN KOREAN

ttattisha-si-ke os-il ip-si-ass-tawarm-HON-KE clothes-ACC put:on-HON-PST-IND'Because the weather was cold, Grandfather got dressed warmly'

(22)

s ! [halapaci-kkesa S2[(halap9ci-kkes9)grandfather-HON/NOM (grandfather-HON/NOM)

ttattisha-si-ke]52 os-il ip-si-oss-ta]sl

warm-HON-PURP clothes-ACC put:on-HON-PST-IND

The 'reconstructed' structure in (22) can explain not only the ambiguity of(8), but also the appearance of the honorific suffix between the adjective andthe suffix -ke in (8).11 Since the suffix -ice is originally the purposivemarker, the verb of the subordinate clause in (22) must contain the honorificsuffix, -si, in order to register the speaker's deference to the subject NP of thesubordinate clause of purpose, halapsci 'grandfather' (as indicated by thebroken line), just as the main verb must in turn carry the honorific suffix toindicate the speaker's deference to the subject NP of the main clause, again,halapoci 'grandfather' (as indicated by the unbroken line). But as thepurposive marker has evolved into the adverb forming suffix (or as theoriginal subordinate clause of purpose has evolved into the manner adverb), itseems that the honorific suffix is now being shunned from the erstwhilesubordinate clause to the extent that (8) is not acceptable to all speakers.12'13

The purposive marker has the propositional function of expressing thepurposive relation between the two events, i.e. an action carried out toachieve a goal (denoted by the main clause) and the goal (denoted by thesubordinate clause). Further, it has a textual function in that it cohesively

11 The 'reconstructed' structure in (22) (and that in (21) for that matter) is only intendedto represent diagrammatically the historical source of the -ke manner adverb; it doesnot serve as some kind of abstract or deep structure on which a transformational orgrammatical rule operates to derive the -ke manner adverb.

1 2 It is clear from both K.M. Lee (1972:167-168) and S.N. Lee (1981:328) that as earlyas in Middle Korean the form -ke had the same PURPOSIVE function as in PresentDay Korean. As neither K.M. Lee nor S.N. Lee indicates that the form -ke also hadthe function of forming manner adverbs in Middle Korean, it may at least be inferredthat the form -ke attained the MANNER function much later than the PURPOSIVEfunction.

1 3 I do not know how widely (8) is taken to be acceptable, although my initialimpression is that a number of Korean speakers (including myself) readily accept it.Obviously, this can only be determined by a large scale investigation.

221

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 2

1:58

07

Aug

ust 2

012

JAE JUNG SONG

links two separate clauses: the main clause and the subordinate clause ofpurpose. The development of the purposive marker into the manner adverbforming suffix (and consequently, the change of the subordinate clause ofpurpose into the manner adverb) is reflective of expressive function. Manneradverbs, which describe the manner of the action denoted by the verb,necessarily are expressive of the speaker's subjective judgements, opinions,attitudes and the like. So, regardless of how 'objectively' courteously thechild may have talked in (10) (cf. Traugott's doubt (1989:36) on trulyobjective modality), the speaker expresses her own subjective judgement ofthe event just by choosing to use the manner adverb chincalha-ke.14 If thespeaker does not think that the child talked courteously enough, she wouldnot use the adverb in the first place. This shift from propositional/textualfunction to expressive function is precisely what Traugott's model ofsemantic-pragmatic change as schematized in (7) captures. It, in fact,exemplifies Tendency III in that the change has brought it about that themeaning of the sequence ADJECTIVE + -ke has become more based in thespeaker's belief state or attitude toward the proposition or situation.15 It is, ashas already been shown in section 2, precisely this kind of increasing

14 Of course, adjectives describe the speaker's subjective judgement or evaluation asmuch as manner adverbs. However, it is not just the adjective, but the sequence ofthe adjective and the purposive marker, or the subordinate clause of purpose that themanner adverb has developed from.15 One of the AJL reviewers expresses some concern about the fact that the -kepurposive suffix has developed into an adverb forming suffix when attached to anadjective, but not when attached to a verb, because this may be taken to suggest thatone may be dealing with two separate but homophonous morphemes, not a singlepolysemous morpheme. There are two brief comments that I would like to make inresponse to this. First, likelihood of polysemy (as opposed to that of homophony) isno stronger than the conceptual strength of the analysis on which it is based (cf.Song 1996:74-75). I am of the opinion that such conceptual strength may be theonly 'evidence' that there is in most of the studies akin to the present one, especiallyin the absence of historical documentation. Second, there are other well documentedcases wherein a given element only undergoes grammaticalization in one, rather thananother, syntactic environment or in a discriminatory manner. The phrase be goingto in English is a case in point. The grammatical changes associated with thisphrase, i.e. phonological reduction to be gonna, development of immediate futurity,loss of the original concrete meaning of motion or directionality, etc., occur in thecontext of non-finite complements (e.g. go to university), not directional-locativephrases (e.g. to university) (Hopper and Traugott 1993:1-4, 80-86). For example, thephonological reduction to be gonna is only evident in the context of non-finitecomplements, as is illustrated in (i) and (ii):(i)a. Emily's going to go to university.

b. Emily's gonna go to university.(ii)a. Emily's going to university.

b. *Emily's gonna university.However, the polysemous relationship between the two instances of go, e.g. in (i.a),is never in doubt.

222

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 2

1:58

07

Aug

ust 2

012

FROM PURPOSIVE TO MANNER IN KOREAN

subjectivity of evaluation that cannot adequately be accounted for by invokingmetaphor.

How, then, did the change from the purposive marker to the manneradverb forming suffix come about? Given the (original) meaning of (21) thatthe child talked to an old man in order to be courteous, it is known that shetalked to the old man and that the (sole) goal of her action was to be courteousto him. This then leads to the inference that the manner of the child's actionwas commensurate with her goal, since if X talks to Y in order that X will becourteous to Y, the first thing that X is expected to do is to talk courteously toY. To put it differently, it is extremely difficult to imagine that if X talks to Yin order that X will be courteous to Y, X will talk to Y in a manner that is notconsistent with X's goal (i.e. discourteously). So, if I say The child talked toan old man in order to be courteous, I invite the inference that I believe thatshe did talk courteously (cf. Traugott 1988:411). Thus, from the purpose of agiven action one can implicate the manner of that action.16'17

In Korean, the inference of the manner of a given action that is drawnpragmatically from the purpose of that action seems to have becomeconventionalized with the effect that the suffix -ke is now used to formmanner adverbs productively.18 Along with Traugott (1989:50-51), I suggest

1 6 As Halliday and Hasan (1976:240) put it, the speaker leaves '[her] own "stamp" onthe situation'.

1 7 The reviewer whose concern I responded to in Note 15 also suggests that theinference that I have described here also works in the opposite direction. That is, if Xtalks to Y in a courteous manner, one can then infer that X intends to be courteousto Y. This is indeed absolutely true, but not in the context of the -ke element. Theoriginal function of -ke is to express PURPOSIVE, not MANNER. Therefore, thedirection of inference must be from the purpose of a given action to the manner ofthat action, not the converse.

18 As the other AJL reviewer points out, 'manner is not logically dependent onpurpose'. In other words, MANNER does not necessarily presuppose somevolitional, controlling, active agent and activity, whereas PURPOSIVE normallydoes so (see Note 3). In (i), for instance, the manner adverb ppali-ke modifies thepredicatecin-a-ka, but no purpose can be imputed to sikan, an abstract entity.(i) sikan-i ppali-ke cin-a-ka-ass-ta

time-NOM quick-KE pass-PF-go-PST-IND'Time passed quickly'

Clearly, the -ke manner adverb, which I claim in this paper has originated from thesubordinate clause of purpose, applies even to activities or actions lacking thepurpose which is typically associated with a volitional, controlling, active agent. Ido not have any explanation as to why this is the case, but it can perhaps beunderstood in terms of extension in the sense of Harris and Campbell (1995:97-119).Initially, there was a condition on, or an exception to, the use of the -ke derivedmanner adverb to the effect that it could not apply to activities or actions lacking thepurpose of a volitional, controlling, active agent. Then, this condition or exceptionwas removed, thereby making it possible for the use of the -ke manner adverb to beextended to a situation such as in (i) (cf. Harris and Campbell 1995:114). This, ofcourse, cannot count as an explanation for the issue that the reviewer has raised,because one still has to say why and how the condition or exception was eliminated;

223

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 2

1:58

07

Aug

ust 2

012

JAE JUNG SONG

that the process that best explains the conventionalizing of the pragmaticinference is the process of pragmatic strengthening (also see Traugott andKonig 1991:207-212, and Hopper and Traugott 1993:63-93): A pragmaticinference that is generated with respect to a given expression is strengthenedby high frequency of use, so much so that it eventually becomes (part of) themeaning of that expression (or semanticized) (Grice 1975, Geis and Zwicky1971, Atlas and Levinson 1981, Song 1996:148-157 among others).19

5. CONCLUSION

In this paper, I have discussed the similarities and differences between theadverb forming suffix -ke and the purposive marker -ke in Korean. On thebasis of that discussion, I have argued that the adverb forming suffix hasdeveloped from the purposive marker, thereby exemplifying Traugott's(1986, 1989) Tendency III, which captures increasing subjectivity ofevaluation on the part of the speaker. I have also suggested that the processthat is responsible for the development of the MANNER function from thePURPOSIVE function is pragmatic strengthening.

REFERENCES

Atlas, J.D. and Levinson, S. 1981. It-clefts, informativeness and logicalform: radical pragmatics. In Cole, P. (ed.), Radical pragmatics. NewYork: Academic Press. 1-61.

Blakemore, D. 1987. Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: BasilBlackwell.

Blansitt, E.L. 1988. Datives and allatives. In Hammond, M., Moravcsik, E.,and Wirth, J. (eds), Studies in syntactic typology. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins. 173-191.

Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology: a study of the relation between meaning andform. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bybee, J. and Pagliuca, W. 1986. The evolution of future meaning. InGiacalone Ramat, A., et al. (eds), Papers from the Seventh InternationalConference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 108-122.

obviously, more research is needed to shed light on this matter (but cf. Comrie1989:219, who observes that when morphological rules, e.g. case or numbermarking, enter a language, they apply first to high animacy categories, subsequentlyspreading to low animacy ones, or that when they are lost from a language, the losstakes place first in low animacy categories, then spreading to high animacy ones).What is the exact nature of the role that frequency plays in the strengthening ofpragmatic inferences, however, remains to be seen.

224

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 2

1:58

07

Aug

ust 2

012

FROM PURPOSIVE TO MANNER IN KOREAN

Comrie, B. 1989 [1981]. Language universals and linguistic typology.Oxford: Blackwell.

Craig, C. 1991. Ways to go in Rama: a case study in polygrammaticalization.In Traugott, E.C. and Heine, B. (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization,Vol.II: focus on types of grammatical markers. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins. 455-492.

Emanatian, M. 1992. Chagga 'come' and 'go': metaphor and thedevelopment of tense-aspect. Studies in Language 16. 1-33.

Frajzyngier, Z. 1986. From preposition to copula. Berkeley LinguisticSociety 12. 371-385.

Geis, M.L. and Zwicky, A.M. 1971. Invited inferences. Linguistic Inquiry2. 561-566.

Gerdts, D. 1990. Revaluation and inheritance in Korean causative union. InPostal, P.M. and Josephs, B.D. (eds), Studies in Relational Grammar 3.Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 203-246.

Givön, T. 1994. Irrealis and the subjunctive. Studies in Language 18. 265-337.

Grice, P.H. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J.L.(eds), Syntax and semantics. Vol 3: speech acts. New York: AcademicPress. 41-58.

Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London:Longman.

Hanson, K. 1987. On subjectivity and the history of epistemic expressions inEnglish. Chicago Linguistic Society 23. 132-147.

Harris, A.C. and Campbell, L. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguisticperspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heine, B. 1990. The dative in Ik and Kanuri. In Croft, W., Denning, K. andKemmer, S. (eds), Studies in typology and diachrony. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins. 129-149.

Heine, B. 1992. Grammaticalization chains. Studies in Language 16. 335-368.

Heine, B., Claudi, U. and Hünnemeyer, F. 1991. Grammaticalization: aconceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hopper, P. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott, E.C.and Heine, B. (eds), Approaches to grammaticalization. Vol.1: focus ontheoretical and methodological issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 17-35.

Hopper, P. and Traugott, E.C. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Horn, L.R. 1984. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-basedand R-based implicature. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.), Meaning, form, and use incontext: linguistic applications. Washington, D.C.: GeorgetownUniversity Press. 11-42.

Karttunen, L. 1971. Implicative verbs. Language 47. 340-358.Ko, Y.K. 1983. Studies in Korean Grammar: yesterday and today (written in

Korean). Seoul, Korea: Thap Publisher.

225

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 2

1:58

07

Aug

ust 2

012

JAE JUNG SONG

Langacker, R.W. 1985. Observations and speculations on subjectivity. InHaiman, J. (ed.), Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 109-150.

Lee, K.M. 1972. An introduction to the history of Korean (written inKorean). Seoul, Korea: Thap Publisher.

Lee, S.N. 1981. Middle Korean Grammar: with special reference to Koreanin the 15th Century (written in Korean). Seoul, Korea: Eulyu Munhwa.

Lee, S.W. 1958. A study of tense in Korean (written in Korean). KukY nku 6.

Lukas, J. 1937. A study of the Kanuri language, grammar and vocabulary.London: Oxford University Press.

Lukoff, F. 1982. An introductory course in Korean. Seoul, Korea: YonseiUniversity Press.

Lyons, J. 1982. Deixis and subjectivity. Loquor, ergo sum? In Jarvella, R.J.and Klein, W. (eds), Speech, place, and action: studies in deixis andrelated topics. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 101-124.

Nam, K.S. and Ko, Y.K. 1993. Standard Korean grammar (written inKorean). Seoul, Korea: Thap Publisher.

Palmer, F.R. 1986. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Persson, G. 1988. Homonymy, polysemy and heterosemy: the types oflexical ambiguity in English. In Hyldgaard-Jensen, K. and Zettersten, A.(eds), Proceedings of the Third International Symposium onLexicography. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. 269-280.

Shibatani, M. 1973. Lexical versus periphrastic causativization in Korean.Journal of Linguistics 9. 209-383.

Sohn, H.-M. 1994. Korean. London: Routledge.Song, J.J. 1988. Clause linkage in Korean periphrastic causative and

purposive constructions. Language Research 24. 583-606.Song, J.J. 1995. The organization and document construction in Korean: a

relational analysis. Linguistics 33. 763-808.Song, J.J. 1996. Causatives and causation: a universal-typological

perspective. London: Addison Wesley Longman.Song, J.J. Forthcoming. On the development of MANNER from GIVE. In

Newman, J. (ed.), The linguistics of giving. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1986. Relevance: communication and cognition.

Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Sweetser, E.E. 1984. Semantic structure and semantic change: a cognitive

linguistic study of modality, perception, speech acts, and logical relations.PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

Sweetser, E.E. 1988. Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. BerkeleyLinguistic Society 14. 389-409.

Traugott, E.C. 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings:some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Lehmann,W.P. and Malkiel, Y. (eds), Perspectives on historical linguistics.Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 245-271.

226

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 2

1:58

07

Aug

ust 2

012

FROM PURPOSIVE TO MANNER IN KOREAN

Traugott, E.C. 1986. From polysemy to internal reconstruction. BerkeleyLinguistic Society 12. 539-550.

Traugott, E.C. 1988. Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization.Berkeley Linguistic Society 14. 406-416

Traugott, E.C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: anexample of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65. 31-55.

Traugott, E.C. 1990. From less to more situated in language: theunidirectionality of semantic change. In Adamson, S., Law, V., Vincent,N. and Wright, S. (eds), Papers from the 5th International Conference onEnglish Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 497-517.

Traugott, E.C. 1991. English speech act verbs: a historical perspective. InWaugh, L.R. and Rudy, S. (eds), New vistas in grammar: invariance andvariation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 387-406.

Traugott, E.C. and König, E. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics ofgrammaticalization revisited. In Traugott, E.C. and Heine, B. (eds),Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol.1: focus on theoretical andmethodological issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 189-218.

Yang, I.S. 1974. Two causative forms in Korean. Language Research 10.83-117.

Jae Jung SongLinguistics SectionSchool of LanguagesUniversity of OtagoPO Box 56, DunedinNEW ZEALANDE-mail: jaejung.song@stonebow.otago.ac.nz

227

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 2

1:58

07

Aug

ust 2

012