1. Epistemics and the construction of social action
< 담화와 인지 학회>
Epistemics and the construction of social action
Yujong Park

2. Articles
Heritage, John. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1-29.
Heritage, John. (2012). The Epistemic engine: Organization and territories of knowledge, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1),
Heritage, John & Geoffrey Raymond. (2012). Navigating Epistemic Landscapes: Acquiescence, Agency and Resistance in Responses to Polar Questions, In J-P de Ruiter (ed.) Questions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

3. <1. Epistemics in action>
Grammatical form cannot adequately account for the social action it performs and vice versa (e.g., interrogative morphosyntax & request for info.)
Conversation analysis (CA) has not progressed very far in developing a systematic analysis of “action formation”
“Do you have X?” / “Would you like to come to my party?”
CA’s approach to first actions: the consideration of sequential position took precedence over examination of the composition of the turn themselves (p. 2)
Find article on whole language reading

4. Studies that show how interrogative morphosyntax does not guarantee request for information
Schegloff (1984): “For whom” “By what standard”
Bolinger (1957): negative interrogatives
Clayman and Heritage (2002), Heinemann (2008): “ How could you X?”
Sadock (1971, 1974): “whimperatives” (instructions – Why don’t you open the window?), “queclaratives (assertions – Did I tell you that writing a PhD was a cakewalk?)
Problem to address: “How are requests for information as a specific form of social action built and made actionable as such?”
Form of agreement
Assert information (“Didn’t he…?)
Challenges or accusations

5. This article analyzes…
The relative significance of three primary elements (interrogative morphosyntax, intonation, and epistemic domain) in the formation of “polar requests for information”
This article proposes…
when there is consensus about who has primary access to a targeted element of knowledge or information (i.e., primary epistemic status), then this takes precedence over morphosyntax and intonation as resources for determining whether a turn at talk conveys or requests information. (p.3)

6. Epistemic Status
Labov and Fanshel (1977): A-events and B-events
Pomerantz (1980): Type 1 and Type 2 knowables
Kamio (1997): “territories of information”, “epistemic domains”
“I forgot to tell you the two best things that happened to me today” / “It’s a beautiful day isn’t it?’
Epistemic status is an inherently relative and relational concept concerning the relative access to some domain of two persons at some point in time (p. 4)
Espistemic status relative to a domain is for the most part a presupposed or agreed upon, and therefore real and enduring, state of affairs. (p. 6)

7. Epistemic Stance
Epistemic stance concerns the moment-by-moment expression of (social) relationships, as managed through the design of turns at talk. (p. 6)
(2) Are you married?
(3) You’re married, aren’t you?
(4) You’re married.
-> recipient has primary rights to know the information, to a different degree: (2) questioner takes an “unknowing” epistemic stance and invites elaboration (3), (4) takes a more “knowing” stance and tend to invite confirmation and sequence closure (p. 6)

8. Who did you talk to? (2) Did you talk to John?
(3) You talked to John didn’t you? (4) You talked to John?
Answerer knowledge
(K+)
Questioner knowledge
(K-) Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1
Epistemic gradient between questioner and responder (Heritage and Raymond, 2012, 4)

9. Epistemic congruency: epistemic stance encoded in a turn at talk will normally converge with the epistemic status of the speaker relative to the topic and recipient
Epistemic divergence: Interactional exigencies
Television news operation on urban disturbance – television news anchors persisted in maintaining an epistemic stance that privileged helicopter-based informants at the scene in terms of access to the domain in question (Raymond, 2000)
Epistemic status is distinct from the epistemic stance that is encoded, moment by moment, in turns at talk.

10. The primacy of epistemic status as a feature of requests for information
Evidence (5 features of turn design) that epistemic status of the speakers is a critical resource for determining the status of the utterance as an action (i.e., requests for information).
Declarative morpho-syntax
Rising intonation
Tag questions
Negative interrogative syntax
Interrogative syntax

11. 1. Declarative syntax (5) [Rah:12:1:ST] Informing (K+)
1 Jen: ◦Hello?,◦
2 (0.5)
3 Ida: Jenny?
4 (0.3)
5 Ida: It’s me:,
6 Jen: Oh hello I:da.
7 Ida:  Ye:h. .h uh:m (0.2) ah’v jis rung tih teh- eh tell you (0.3)
 uh the things ev arrived from Barkerr’n Stone ’ou[:se,
9 Jen: [Oh:::::.
10 (.)
11 Jen: Oh c’n ah c’m rou:nd,hh
Informing (K+)

12. 5 DOC:  You’re divorced (◦cur[rently,◦) 6 PAT: [Mm hm,
(6) [MidWest 2.4]
1 DOC: Are you married?
2 (.)
3 PAT: No.
4 (.)
5 DOC:  You’re divorced (◦cur[rently,◦)
6 PAT: [Mm hm,
Inviting confirmation (K-)

13. (11) [NB II:2:1 (Pomerantz 1980:195) 01 Nan: Hel-lo:, 02 Emm:. hh HI::
(11) [NB II:2:1 (Pomerantz 1980:195) 01 Nan: Hel-lo:, 02 Emm: .hh HI::. 03 (.) 04 Nan: Oh: ‘i::: ‘ow a:re you Emmah: 05 Emm: -> FI:NE yer LINE’S BEEN BUSY. 06 Nan: Yea:h (.) my u.-fuhh h-.hhhh my fa:ther’s wife ca:lled 07 he .hhh So when she ca:lls me::,h .hh I always talk 08 fer a lo:ng ti:me cz she c’n afford it’n n I ca:n’t [hh 09 Emm: -> [OH:]::::: ]:=
Request for information (K-)

14. Real-world epistemic status will evidently take precedence over the significance of declative syntax in determining whether a turn of talk is delivering, or asking for, information (p. 12)

15. 2. Declarative syntax with rising intonation
Rising intonation will not take precedence over epistemic status as a key to action formation. (13) [Field X(C):2:1:4: 95–128] 1 Les: Anyway when d’you think you’d like t’come home ↓love. 2 (.) 3 Kat: Uh:m (.) we:ll Brad’s goin’ down on Monday. 4 (0.7) 5 Les: Monday we:ll ah-:hh .hh w:-Monday we can’t manage becuz 6 (.) Granny’s ↓coming Monday.↓ ((15 lines of transcript omitted))

16. Continuing (K+)
10 Les: -> .hhh Yes alri:ght .hh The -thing is (.) u-we’re all 11 -> meeting Granny off the bus: on Monday eve↓ni:ng? 12 Kat: ehYeah, 13 Les: .hhhh But -then Dad could come: back ‘n hhhave iz ↓tea 14 ‘n then go on: to Glastonbur[y 15 Kat: [Ye:s well if I’m at the 16 Kidwells’ house it dzn’t matter (.) I mean he c’n come: 17 pick me up whenever ‘e wants to ◦can’t h[e◦ 18 Les: [.hhh Yes that’s 19 ↓ri:ght.hh

17. In search of information (K-)
(14) Chicken Dinner 1 Viv: -> [Tom still though] works (.) be[hind that= 2 Sha: [.ihhh 3 Viv: -> =[j u i c e b a__r?] 4 Sha: =[(eh he hh eh) ] 5 Mic: =[(Specially) if yih don’t ]thi[nk abou[t it.] 6 Viv: -> [Or no[:t.] 7 Sha: [uh-hn-hn Yeh 8 Mic: nhh[h 9 Viv: -> [Tom doesn’work behin’the juice [ba[r? 10 Sha: N[o not’ny mo’. 11 Nan: [Mm 12 (.) 13 Sha: Hadtuh let’m go

18. 3. Tag questions The functions of tag questions:
requesting information, normally confirmation of the assertion made in the declarative component of the utterance (K-)
a method of mobilizing response (Stivers & Rossano, 2010) in contexts where the speaker is looking for support for a point of view (K+)

19. (15) [NB II:1R: 43–51] 1 Emm: WHA T A MISERBLE WEEKE:ND. 2 (0
(15) [NB II:1R: 43–51] 1 Emm: WHA T A MISERBLE WEEKE:ND. 2 (0.2) 3 Lot: -> Yea:h en gee it’s been: beautiful down here I know 4 -> you’ve had it (.) lousy in town have[ncha. ] 5 Emm: [ Yea:h] it rained 6 yesterday, 7 (0.2) 8 Lot: But the sun wz ou:t here it wz beautiful [yestered]ay. 9 Emm: [◦ eeYah.◦ ]
Seeking confirmation K-

20. (18) [Dry cleaned dress] small claims court hearing 1 Pla: I mean I: think mese:lf they put it on one a’ their steam 2 thi:ngs ri:ght? 3 (0.7) 4 Pla: -> ‘N’ sta:rt pressin’ it.<Don’t they. 5 (0.6) 6 Pla: -> See w’t they u:se, they don’t use an iron↑do they. 7 (.) 8 Arb: .hhh We:ll p’raps we c’n get Mister Collins t’tell us about 9 that’n a mom’nt.
Assertions of fact/opinion in search of support (K+)

21. 4. Negative interrogative syntax
Negative interrogative syntax is not decisive in determining the status of a turn as “questioning” (20) [NB:IV:10(R):14–17] 1 Emm: .h -How wz yer tri:p. 2 Lot: Oh:: Go:d wonderful Emm[a, 3 Emm: -> [Oh idn’it beautiful do:wn the:re, 4 Lot: Oh:: Jeeziz ih wz go:rgeous::.
Asserting an opinion (K+)

22. (23) [JH:FN About the weather in Tokyo] 1 A: But the weather’s humid in Fall, 2 B: ((Looks puzzled)) 3 A: -> Isn’t the weather humid in Fall? 4 B: Yes it is.
Question in search of confirmation (K-)

23. (24) [US: 1076–1086] 1 Mik: Youhave a tank I like tuh tuh- I-I [like- 2 Vic: [Yeh I gotta fa:wty:: 3 I hadda fawtuy? a fifty, enna twu[nny:: en two ten::s, 4 Mik: [Wut- Wuddiyuh doing 5 wit [dem. Wuh- 6 Ric: -> [But those were uh::: [Alex’s tanks. 7 Vic: [enna fi:ve. 8 Vic: Hah? 9 Ric: -> Those’r Alex’s tanks weren’t they? 10 Vic: Pondn’ me? 11 Ric: -> Weren’t- didn’ they belong tuh Al[ex? 12 Vic: [No: Alex ha(s) no tanks 13 Alex is tryin’tuh buy my tank. K+ K-

24. The interpretation of negative interrogatives as requesting or conveying information is dependent on the epistemic status of the speaker relative to the recipient. (Bolinger, 1957)

25. 5. Straight interrogative syntax
Interrogative syntax does NOT determine whether a turn is seeking information (25) [HG:II:25] 1 Nan: -> .hhh Dz he ‘av ‘iz own apa:rt[mint?] 2 Hyl: [.hhhh] Yea:h,= 3 Nan: =Oh:, 4 (1.0) 5 Nan: How didju git ‘iz number,
Information request (K-)

26. Information request understood as a preannouncement
(26) [KR:2] 1 Mom: Daddy ‘n I have t- both go in different 2 directions, en I wanna talk t’you about where I’m 3 going (t’night). 4 Rus: (Mkay,) 5 Gar: Is it about u:s? 6 Mom: (Uh) huh, 7 Rus: <I know where yer goin, 8 Mom: Whˆere. 9 Rus: To thuh eh (eight grade )= 10 Mom: =Yeah. Right. 11 Mom: -> Do you know who’s going to that meeting? 12 Rus: Who. 13 Mom: I don’t kno:w. 14 (0.2) 15 Rus: .hh Oh::. Prob’ly .h Missiz Mc Owen (‘n Dad said) 16 prob’ly Missiz Cadry and some of the teachers.
Information request understood as a preannouncement

27. (29) [US CBS Evening News: 25 Jan 1988: Iran-Contra]
IR: Dan Rather IE: George Bush
1 IR: => You’ve- you’ve made us hypocrites in [the face o’ the world.]=
2 IE: [( )]=
3 IR: => =How couldja [gr- how couldja-] (.) sign on to such a policy.
4 IE: [(That was ba:d) ]
5 IR: .hh[h And the question] [is, what does that tell us about your]=
6 IE: [Well (half-) the] [ same reason the President ]=
7 IR: =[record.]
8 IE: =[ si]gned on to it. (0.2) The same reason the President
9 signed on to it. .hh When a CIA agent is being tortured to death,
10 .h maybe ya err on the side of a human life.
Accusation

28. (30) [Debbie and Shelley] 1 Shelley: So: I mean it’s not becuz he’s- he’s- I mean it’s not 2 becuz he:‘s not going it’s becuz (0.5) his money’s 3 not¿ (0.5) funding me. 4 Debbie: Okay¿ 5 Shelley: -> So an’ ↑when other time have I ever [done that? 6 Debbie: [.hhh well I’m jus say:in’ 7 it jus seems you- you base a lot of things on-on guy:s. 8 (.) I do’know:, it just- a couple times I don- I don- 9 .hh it’s not a big deal.
Protest, rebuttal

29. Summary

30. conclusion Implications:
Relative epistemic status dominates morphosyntax and intonation in shaping whether utterances are to be understood as requesting or conveying information .
Interactants must at all times be cognizant of what they take to be the real-world distribution of knowledge and of rights to knowledge between them as a condition of correctly understanding how clausal utterances are to be interpreted as social actions.
The analysis of interaction cannot by any means avoid the fundamental relevance of epistemic status in the construction of action and the management of interaction .

31. Applications:
The role of epistemic status in the determination of whether an utterance is conveying or requesting information may play a fundamental role in the determination of higher-order actions such as requests, offers, proposals, suggestions, compliments, and complaints, to name but a few (p. 25).
The distinction is fundamental to sequence organization since next actions and their sequelae to assertions that convey information, as opposed to questions that request it, are entirely distinctive and indeed contrastive (Heritage, 2012).
Because personhood and social identity are so deeply intertwined with epistemic status and its claims (Raymond & Heritage, 2006), the topic may have profound social and psychological ramifications.

32. The Relationship between Negative Questions and Sentence Final Particles in Korean
박유정 (2010) 담화와 인지 17(2), 1-25

33. Building questions in Korean
Korean questions are built through sentence final intonation or interrogative final suffixes rather than by reversing the word order
Korean negative yes/no questions can be built through three different forms (long form, short form and nomialized form) which differ in the epistemic rights that the speakers convey through them
Answers to Korean negative polar questions align with the action rather than the question’s polarity
Korean questions can have optional final suffixes such as –ci/cwo (committal suffix) and –ko (connective suffix) attached to them (comparable to English tag questions)

34. Formulation of negative yes/no questions
Negative Yes/No Interrogative Forms (Noh, 2005)
Short Form Negation:
an + main verb
pay an apha-yo?
stomach NEG hurt-POL
“Your stomach doesn’t hurt?
2. Long Form Negation:
main verb + ci an(h)-pro-verb
pay aphu-ci anh-ayo?
stomach hurt-COMM NEG-POL
 “Doesn’t your stomach hurt?”
3. Nominalized Form Negation:
main verb + ke-n eps-pro-verb
pay aphu-n ke-n eps-eyo?
stomach hurt-ATTR thing-ATTR NEG-POL
  “As for stomach aches, you don’t have them?”
Short form negations (1) are formed by placing a negative adverb an- ‘no, not’ before the predicate (i.e. an + main verb) and is also referred to as pre-verbal negation (Kim, 2000). They contain no language that either strengthens or weakens the question’s epistemic claim when compared to the other two sets of questions. The second type (2) – long form negative questions – is formed by attaching a committal suffix –ci to the first predicate in the sentence and placing a negative verb anh-ta ‘be not’ afterwards (i.e. main verb+ci anh+pro-verb). Because the word carrying the negation is placed after the first main verb, the structure is also called post-verbal negation. The third set of questions (3) is formed by adding a nominalized form (i.e. deictic term) –ke ‘thing’ to the topic particle (or delimiter) –nun, followed by a descriptive verb eps- ‘do not exist/have’: -ke-nun eps-eyo? (roughly translated into ‘as for such things, you don’t have?’)

35. Final suffixes (Stance markers)
1. –ko ‘and’: connective final suffix
C4. –ko suffixed negative yes/no question
01 DOC: sopyen posil-ttay mwe aphu-kena pwulphenha-kena kulen-ken eps-ko.=
urine go-when what hurt-or uncomfortable-or  such-thing NEG-and
NF+ko  When (you) urinate (it) doesn’t hurt or is uncomfortable or such-ko.=
02 PAT: =yey.
yes
 =Yes. (E: No.)  

36. C9 –ci/cwo suffixed yes/no question
2. –ci/cwo ‘right’: committal final suffix
C9 –ci/cwo suffixed yes/no question
01 DOC: cikum mek-ul yak-un iss-cwo.
now eat-ATTR medicine-TOP exist-COMM:POL
 (you) have medicine now-cwo.
02 PAT: ney.
yes:POL
 Yes.

37. Research Goals
Investigate the epistemic meaning encoded in three forms of Korean polar negative interrogatives Demonstrate the collocation patterns that appear between these three question forms and two final suffixes –ci and –ko.

38. Data
60 primary care consultations collected in Seoul, Korea between Frequency of Content and Polar questions in the Data Set
Question type
Content Questions
Polar yes/no Questions
Total
# of questions (%)
250 (20%)
998 (80%)
1248 (100%)
Medical visits are excellent candidates for empirical studies of specific linguistic practices because medical encounters are tightly organized events (ten Have, 1991, 138), which are repeated on a daily basis. Institutional interaction involves a selective reduction in the full range of conversational practices available for use in everyday interaction and there exists a degree of concentration on specialization of particular procedures, which have their home environment in ordinary talk (Heritage, 1984a, 237).

39. The Distribution of Negative Yes/No Interrogatives Types
Negative constructions
Unmarked
Committal suffixes
Connective suffixes
Total
Short form
36 (46.2%)
8 (10.2%)
34 (43.6%)
78 (100 %)
Long form
16 (47.1%)
12 (35.3%)
6 (17.6%)
34 (100 %)
Nominalized form
40 (44.5%)
26 (28.9%)
24 (26.7%)
90 (100 %)
92 (45.5%)
46 (22.8%)
64 (31.7%)
202 (100%)

40. Extract 1. Unmarked short form negative question
(2.0) ((Doctor flips through the chart))
15 DOC: i kichim kalay-nun pyello epsu-sey-yo?
this cough phlegm-TOP not.much NEG-SH-POL
SF  (You) don’t have much cough or phlegm?
16 PAT: ince::y hm. Kucen-ey-nun eps-ess-nuntey-yo?
Now before-at-TOP NEG-PST-but-POL
Now:: hm. (I) didn’t have (it) before but?
17 DOC: ney ney.
yes:POL yes:POL
Yes yes.
18 PAT: kumyoil-nal. (.) e kumyoil-pwuthe?
Friday-day Friday-since
Friday. (.) mm since Friday?

41. Extract 2. Unmarked short form negative question
30 DOC: kokay tollye-to ecilep-ko. head turn-also dizzy-CONN (You) also get dizzy when (you) turn your head-ko. 31 PAT: ney. yes:POL Yes. 32 DOC: choykuney kamki kiwun eps-ess-e? kamki kellin-cek eps-ess-e? recently cold feeling NEG-PST-IE cold take-time NEG-PSS-IE SF  (You) haven’t caught a cold recently? (You) haven’t caught a cold? 33 PAT: han two-tal. Han-tal pan cen-e::y, about two-month one-month half before-at About two months. One month and a half before:,

42. 34 DOC: mm. yes Yes. 35 PAT: ye mok kamki
34 DOC: mm. yes Yes. 35 PAT: ye mok kamki. here throat cold Here throat cold. ((points toward throat)) 36 DOC: mok kamki han pen kellye-ss-ko. throat cold one time catch-PST-CONN (You) had a throat cold once-ko. ((starts writing on chart)) 37 PAT: ney. yes:POL

43. Extract 3. P12. Unmarked Long Form
04 MOM: achim-ey selsa-lul cim sey-pen ha-ko-yo. morning-at diarrhea-ACC now three-times do-CONN-POL (He) had diarrhea three times since this morning-ko. 05 DOC: mm. selsa-lul sey-pen ha[-ko, diarrhea-ACC three-time do-CONN mm. (He) had diarrhea three times-[ko, 06 MOM: [ney. yes:POL [Yes. pay-ka a- aphu-ta [kule-ko. stomach-NOM h- hurt-DC say-CONN and (he) says that his stomach h- hurts[.

44. 07 DOC: [thoha-ci-nun anh-ass-eyo
07 DOC: [thoha-ci-nun anh-ass-eyo? vomit-CONN-ATTR NEG-PST-POL LF  [Hasn’t (he) vomited? 08 MOM: ney. thoha-ci-nun anh-kwu-yo, [yel-i:: yes:POL vomit-COMM-ATTR NEG-CONN-POL fever-NOM Yes (E: No). (He) hasn’t vomited-kwu, [Fever:: 09 DOC: [selsa sey-pen ha-ko? diarrhea three-time do-CONN [(He) had diarrhea three times-ko? yelna-ko [pay aphu-ko. fever-CONN stomach hurt-CONN (He) had fever and [(his) stomach hurt-ko. 10 MOM: [ney. yes:POL [Yes.

45. Extract 4. Unmarked Nominalized Form
06 DOC: kho makhim-un eps- iss-ess-eyo eps-ess-eyo? kho makhim. Nasal cong.-TOP not:have exist-PST-POL not:exist-PST-POL Nasal cong. (You) didn’t have- did you have nasal congestion or not? Nasal congestion. ((looks at child)) 07 CHI: iss-ess-eyo. Exist-PST-POL (I) had it. 08 DOC: iss-ess-eyo? .hh kichim-hako kho-haka. Okey::i. Exist-PST-POL cough-CONN nose-CONN Okay (You) had it? .hh Cough and nose. Oka::y.

46. 09 DOC: Kichim-hako kotmwul-hako kho makhi-nun ke Cough-CONN runny:nose-CONN nasal congestion-ATTR thing wa:yey talun ke-nun eps-ess-e?= Besides different thing-TOP not:have-PST-IE NF  Besides: cough and runny nose and nasal congestion, (you) didn’t have anything/something else?= 10 CHI: =ney. Yes:POL =Yes.

47. 11 DOC: kwui-ka aphu-kena yelna-kena kulen ken eps-ess-ni
11 DOC: kwui-ka aphu-kena yelna-kena kulen ken eps-ess-ni? ear-NOM hurt-or fever-or such thing not:have-PST-INTERR NF  Did (you) not have ear pain, fever or such things? 12 CHI: ney. yes.  Yes. (E: No) ((nods head)) 13 DOC: okay. Heysengi il-lwu wa-pwa. okay (name) here-towards come-try Okay. Heyseng come here. ((turns chair toward child))

48. Degree of Epistemic Claims
stronger Long form + Final suffixes (+) Nominalized form weaker (-) Short form
2/21/09
Workshop on East Asian Languages

49. Initial observations
- Long form negative questions and Nominalized form negative questions are more assertive when compared to short form negative questions. This could be due to 1) the committal –ci employed in the formation of long form negative questions (-ci anh-) 2) the follow-up position that nominalized form negative questions occupy.

50. Question Forms and their Co-occurrence with Committal (-ci) and Connective (-ko) Suffixes
: a statistically significant relationship was found between form and suffixes in the case of long form and short form (p=0.0021), and nominal and short form questions (p=0.0043) 1. long form negative question, which already contain the committal –ci in its construction, are more likely to employ the final suffix –ci than short form negatives, thus doubly conveying their commitment to the proposition.

51. Extract 5. LF + cwo
67 DOC: ne::y. cikum yelna-ko mak chwup-ko kule-sey-yo?= yes:POL now fever-CONN just cold-and such-SH-POL Ye::s. Are (you) feverish and have cold and such now?= 68 PAT: =kulen ke-n eps-eyo. such thing-ATTR NEG-POL = (I) don’t have such things. 69 (0.2) 70 DOC: sswusi-ko aphu-ci anh-cwo? ache-CONN hust-CONN NEG-COMM:POL LF+cwo  (It) doesn’t ache or hurt-cwo? 71 PAT: ney. yes:POL Yes. (E: No.) 72 DOC: kho-ka nolah-key nawa-yo? mucus-NOM yellow-as come.out-POL Does (your) mucus come out as yellowy?

52. 2. The nominalized forms display different characteristics from short form negations in their co-occurrence with the final suffix –ko ‘and’. They were more likely to be produced with the sentence final –ko thus underscoring its position in the sequence.

53. Extact 6. NF + connective suffix (-ko)
156 DOC: ku kahayca-lang hapui-ka an tweyn-ke ani-eyo?= that wrongdoer-with agreement-NOM not become-thing NEG-POL  Wasn’t it the case that (you) haven’t reached an agreement with the assailant? 157 PAT: =ani-eyo. Kulen ke-n ani-ntey. No-POL such thing-ATTR NEG-CIRCUM =No. That’s not the case-ntey. 158 DOC: a kulen ken ani-ko? oh such thing NEG-CONN NF+ko  Oh that is not the case-ko? 159 PAT: yey. Yes:POL =No.

54. C8 Nominalized form negative question + -ko
30 DOC: cca-n key iss-ess-na? salty-ATTR thing exist-PST-INTERR Was there something salty? 31 (0.5) 32 DOC: ccakey mek-un key eps-kwu-yo? Salty eat-ATTR thing NEG-CONN-POL NF+ko  There wasn’t anything salty-kwu? 33 PAT: kutaci. Kukhey cca-ci-n. Not.much big salty-COMM-TOP Not much. (Nothing) was that salty.

55. Findings
1. The examination points to the sequential sensitivity and epistemic authority displayed in grammatical forms where doctors use more unmarked short form and nominalized negation when compared to long form negations with the –ci suffix. 2. Long-form negative questions that communicates the strongest epistemic claim are more likely to occur with the committal –ci suffix, while the nominalized negative question forms tend to co- occur with the connective –ko suffix. This points to the possible existence of formulaic language in Korean where sentence structure and final suffixes underscore the meaning of each other by co-occurring with each other.
Despite the range of logically possible alternative forms that could be constructed through different pairings of these resources, a relatively small subset of these appears to be used frequently.