Earticle

This study investigates Korean and Japanese positive response particles, analyzing both propositional functions (responses to calls, questions, and acceptance of proposals or suggestions) and discourse functions (conversation facilitation, topic transition, emotional response, recognition, etc.). The results indicate that Japanese hai and ee are not merely honorific variants but have functional constraints: hai is used in formal or imperative contexts, whereas ee appears only in contexts allowing the listener’s autonomous judgment. In contrast, Korean ne, ye, and gure are more freely used across various contexts, with gure showing non-honorific functional similarity. In situations such as expressing gratitude, apology, or praise, Japanese uses negative response forms to convey humility and mitigate responsibility, while Korean uses positive responses to indicate acknowledgment and acceptance. This study classifies positive responses into receptive, connective, and progressive functions and highlights the shared universal functions and language-specific distinctions of positive response particles, confirming their crucial role in speaker interaction and discourse organization.

本研究は、韓国語と日本語における肯定応答形式を対象とし、命題機能(呼びかけ･質問への応答、提案･勧誘の受諾など)と談話機能(会話の促進、話題転換、情動的応答、認知表示など)の両面から分析を行った。 その結果、日本語の｢はい｣と｢ええ｣は単なる敬語的な異形ではなく、機能的制約を有することが明らかとなった。｢はい｣はフォーマルな場面や命令･指示的文脈で用いられるのに対し、｢ええ｣は聞き手の自律的判断が許容される文脈に限定して現れる。 一方、韓国語の｢ne｣｢ye｣｢gure｣は多様な文脈においてより自由に使用され、｢gure｣は非敬語的な機能的類似性を示すことが確認された。 さらに、感謝･謝罪･称賛などの場面においては、日本語では否定応答形式を用いることで謙遜や責任回避を表すのに対し、韓国語では肯定応答を用いて認知や受容を示す傾向が見られる。本研究は肯定応答を受容的機能、連結的機能、進行的機能に分類し、その結果、肯定応答形式が持つ普遍的機能と個別言語的差異を明らかにするとともに、これらが話者間相互作用および談話構造の形成において重要な役割を果たしていることを示した。

This study examines the Korean nominalized negation kes ani- as a commentary device combining propositional objectification and external negation. Unlike internal negation, kes ani- formally bounds negative scope via the nominalized clause. The epistemic distance thus created is evidenced by the clause's nominal status, split tense marking, and the negated proposition's interlocutor-based origin. Analysis of 1,700 corpus tokens yields four commentary functions forming a single cline: [Factual Negation], [Presuppositional Negation], [Deontic], and [Confirmation]. These pattern by discourse type and grammatical marker. Collaborative dialogues favor the first two, where kes-i ani- corrects misunderstandings and kes-un ani- mitigates face threats; argumentative texts favor the latter two, using -ul kes clauses for deontic commentary and embedding kes ani- under interrogative complements to raise suspicion. Objectification and negation thus operate jointly, with adnominal endings and particles differentiating the commentary performed.