The social meaning and function of the Korean subject suffix –(u)si

Sang-Seok Yoon of Iowa

The honorific suffix –(u)si is known to indicate the speaker's respect or deference for the person referred to/being talked about. It is generally regarded that –(u)si is attached to the predicate when the subject deserves deference from the speaker, and this phenomenon is generally called “honorific agreement.” There have been many discussions on –(u)si, which include whether honorific agreement is a grammatical rule or a sociolinguistic phenomenon, and how to explain when an NP that triggers the use of –(u)si is not the subject of the sentence (e.g. Choe 2004, Choi 2010, Lee 2005, Mok 2013, Sohn 2013). There have been many interesting studies about the syntactic and sociolinguistic characteristics of –(u)si, but its social meanings and functions in real conversations have not received a lot of attention. The meaning of –(u)si has not been explained more than “expressing respect or deference to the referent,” even though there are many subtle social meanings of –(u)si. Therefore, this study will investigate how –(u)si is used in real conversations from the perspective of indexicality. Indexicality concerns how to relate linguistic form to social meanings in a given context (Ochs 1990, 1993; Silverstein 1976). Following the indexical view, this study will analyze the use of –(u)si in various genres of television show conversations (e.g. news, debates, talk shows, and comedy shows). This study will first discuss speakers’ strategic use of –(u)si. In complex sentences or sentences with auxiliary structures, there are multiple places where –(u)si can be attached. However, speakers do not use –(u)si in every possible place, but they selectively use it to regulate their psychological attitudes to the addressee or referent. Especially when the referent and the addressee are the same person, combinations of honorific sentence endings (i.e. – eyo/ayo and -[su]pnita) and -(u)si lead to variations in the degree of a speaker’s honorific intention (Oh 2010). In the data for this study, –(u)si is found to be related to the role of the speaker at the moment. For example, the talk show hosts tend to use more –(u)si to audience or guests when they perform their role as an emcee (Ex 1), but they may use it less frequently during casual conversation (Ex 2). Also, it appears that –(u)si is more frequently used when the speaker talks about the referent putting some psychological distance. For example, the use of –(u)si is found more often when they talk about someone who is not present than someone who is present (Ex 3). This study argues that –(u)si is not merely an honorific/deference marker, but the core function of -(u)si is indexing a speaker’s ceremonial stance to the given situation and the psychological distance from the action or state related to the referent. This study further argues that the use of –(u)si mostly depends on the speaker’s strategic choice and psychological stance. Data (Ex1) From the talk show opening remark by the emcee onul hanpen thukpyelhan nukkim-ulo caymiiss- syo po-si-ko today once special feeling-by exciting-Rl* show watch-SH-and kipwun cohkey tolaka-si-ess-umyen coh-kess-eyo feeling well go back-SH-Pst-if good-will-Pol ‘Today, I hope you will watch this exciting show with special feeling and go back pleasantly.’ (Ex2) Talk show emcee having a conversation with a guest. (The “Ø” marked positions are possible positions for using –(u)si.) hay.oy hwaltong ha-Ø-myense kacang kuliwu-Ø-ess-ten-key overseas activity do-Ø-while most miss-Ø-Pst-Rt-thing mwe-ka iss-Ø-eyo? what-Nom have-Ø-Pol ‘While working overseas, what did you miss the most?’ (Ex3) A guest is talking about her parents. emenim apenim hanthey icey com ssu-si-ko sa-si-eto mother father to now a little use-SH-and live-SH-even so toy-nta-ko kuntey an ssu-si-eyo okay-Dc-Qt but not use-SH-Pol I am telling my mother and father now that they can spend more, but they ’t spend.

*Rl-relativiser suffix, SH-subject honorific suffix, Pst-past tense suffix, Pol-polite sentence ending, Rt- Retrospective mood suffix, Nom-nominative case marker, Dc-declarative sentence ending, Qt-quotative particle

References Choe, J-W. (2004). Obligatory honorification and the honorific feature. Studies in Generative Grammar 14(4): 545-559. Choi, K. (2010). Subject Honorification in Korean: In Defense of Agr and Head-Spec Agreement. Language Research 46.1, 59-82. Lee, J-B. (2006). On the Studies on Korean from the Sociolinguistic Standpoint. Kuk.e.hak [Korean Linguistics] 47: 407-448. Mok, J-S. (2013). On the Prefinal Ending ‘-si-‘ in Korean: as a subject indicator. Kuk.e.hak [Korean Linguistics] 67:63-103. Ochs, E. (1990). Indexicality and socialization. In J. W. Stiger, R. A. Shweder and G. Herdt (Eds.), Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human development (pp. 287-307). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, E. (1993). Constructing social identity: A language socialization perspective. Research on Languages and Social Interaction 26(3): 287-306. Oh, C-S. (2010). Two Types of Honorification for addressee in Korean. Studies in Linguistics 17, 117-141. Silverstein, M. (1976). Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In Keith H. Basso and Henly A. Selby (Eds.), Meaning in anthropology (pp. 11-55). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Sohn, H-M. (2013). Honorific Agreement in Korean. In. Ho-mon Sohn (ed.) Topics in Korean Language and Linguistics (pp. 531-554). Seoul: Korea University Press.