1) Spoken Corpus

A 91,437-word subset of the Linguistic Data Consortium (LDC) Korean conversational telephone speech corpus was analyzed.² Telephone conversations provide naturally occurring, co-constructed interaction, revealing sequential contingencies and real-time strategies for managing epistemic uncertainty. Spoken excerpts were presented in a three-tier transcription format (original utterance, Yale romanization-based morphemic/lexical gloss, English translation)³. Transcription focused on lexical content, turn shape, and sequential placement; fine-grained phonetic details, pauses, and overlaps were not systematically annotated. Speaker roles were anonymized as A (caller) and B (receiver) to foreground interactional organization.

2) Written Corpus

A 132,843-word subset of the 21st Century Sejong Corpus, consisting of newspaper articles, was examined. Written examples were formatted using the same three-tier structure—original text, Yale romanization-based gloss, and English translation—to ensure comparability with the spoken data.⁴ As planned, public-facing discourse, these texts provide an environment in which –nka fulfills primarily rhetorical, evaluative, and stance-marking functions rather than turn-by-turn interactional ones.

3) Token Identification and Selection

All instances of –nka used as sentence-final interrogatives were identified using Ant Conc. Tokens in subordinate clauses were excluded to avoid conflating structurally constrained forms with clause-final interactional or rhetorical uses. A total of 57 spoken tokens and 64 written tokens were retained.

1) –nka as an Other-Addressed Interrogative Ender

(a) Information-seeking interrogatives ender (ISIE)

In its prototypical interrogative function, –nka occurs in questions genuinely addressed to an interlocutor who is presumed to possess relevant knowledge. In such contexts, –nka explicitly signals epistemic asymmetry, whereby the speaker designates the addressee as the more knowledgeable party (Heritage, 2012; Raymond & Heritage, 2006). This usage was observed exclusively in spoken discourse, highlighting the interactive negotiation of information between participants.

Example 1 (excerpted from LDC corpus)

Example 1 illustrates this canonical function. Speaker A asks about the current status of financial aid in Ph.D. programs, directly seeking information that B is presumed to know. B’s immediate provision of the requested information confirms that the –nka-marked question functions as a prototypical information-request, facilitating the transfer of knowledge from a more informed to a less informed interlocutor within a collaborative discourse setting.

(b) Confirmation-seeking interrogatives (CSIE)

A second subtype involves situations where the speaker has a tentative hypothesis or partial knowledge and seeks the addressee’s confirmation. This aligns with Yoon’s (2010) notion of confirmation request questions, in which the speaker displays a candidate understanding while requesting validation.

Although prior descriptions of –nka have not highlighted this function, the spoken data contain numerous tokens where –nka indexes epistemic uncertainty combined with a candidate proposal. In Example 2, Speaker A produces a tentative guess (“Art of Fighting”) and formats it with –nka, inviting B to confirm or correct it.

Example 2 (excerpted from LDC corpus)

In Example 2, although A does not recall the exact title of the video game, he nevertheless displays a partial understanding of the target information by producing a candidate answer, Art of Fighting, in line 3. This practice—formulating a candidate understanding for the recipient to confirm or disconfirm—is a well-documented interactional resource in spoken discourse, as speakers routinely propose “candidate answers” to seek validation from more knowledgeable interlocutors (cf. Heritage, 2012, on epistemic gradients). This pattern contrasts with Example 1, where the speaker poses an information-seeking interrogative without offering any tentative formulation of the sought-after information.

In line 4, B responds by rejecting and correcting A’s candidate answer, replacing Art of Fighting with Art of Fight. This correction indexes B’s epistemic authority regarding the lexical item in question. Subsequently, A produces the acceptance token ung (‘yes’), ratifying B’s correction and thereby orienting to B’s higher epistemic status in this local domain of knowledge. The exchange illustrates how –nka can function as a confirmation-seeking interrogative ender (CSIE): its use simultaneously conveys the speaker’s uncertainty and invites the recipient’s epistemic confirmation, situating the interlocutors within an asymmetrical but collaborative knowledge organization.

(c) Rhetorical interrogatives (RIE)

Third, –nka also appears as a rhetorical interrogative ender (RIE), marking interrogatives whose primary function is not to elicit information but to convey a stance or pursue affiliation from the addressee. Although this use shares with information-seeking and confirmation-seeking –nka the surface feature of being directed toward the addressee/reader, it differs fundamentally in that the speaker does not project a response. Instead, rhetorical –nka functions to foreground the speaker’s evaluative or affective stance toward a proposition, while implicitly inviting the addressee’s alignment. Such usage aligns with prior observations that rhetorical questions operate as stance displays and affiliative bids rather than as genuine information requests (Koshik, 2005).

Examples 3 and 4—taken from the spoken and written corpora, respectively—illustrate this rhetorical deployment of –nka. Consider Example 3. In the preceding interaction, B has announced the decision to move out of his current residence. In response to this news, A asks in line 1 where B plans to live after moving out. Following A’s inquiry, B explains in line 2-3 that he can rent an apartment designated for unmarried students.

Example 3 (excerpted from LDC corpus)

In line 4, B then produces the rhetorical interrogative mwe kuke mwen mwuncey-nka? (‘Is that a problem?’), employing –nka to articulate a stance of confidence and to downplay any potential difficulty. Crucially, B does not issue this interrogative with the expectation that A will answer; rather, it serves as a stance-laden assertion packaged in interrogative form. This is evidenced by A’s subsequent action in line 4: instead of responding to B’s question, A initiates a new course of action by posing another question. B’s –nka-marked interrogative in line 4 therefore operates as a rhetorical device that upgrades and strengthens his position more forcefully than a simple declarative would allow. In this respect, rhetorical –nka can be understood as a resource for epistemic and affective positioning, used to project a strong stance while simultaneously inviting tacit affiliation from the interlocutor.

Example 4 presents a parallel case from the written corpus, where the author articulates a strong affective stance toward South Korea’s first victory in the 2002 World Cup. In this instance, the rhetorical interrogative marked with the sentence-final ending –nka does not serve to solicit factual information but instead functions as a resource for amplifying evaluative and emotional meaning in written discourse.

Example 4 (excerpted from 21^st C. Sejong Corpus)

In line 2, the author poses the question elmana kitaly-ess-te-nka? (‘How long have we been waiting?’). Although grammatically interrogative, the utterance does not function as an information-seeking request, as no concrete response is expected from the reader. Rather, the rhetorical question serves to dramatize the prolonged anticipation collectively experienced by the Korean people prior to the victory—a discourse function widely observed in rhetorical questions across languages, which often operate as stance-bearing assertions rather than genuine inquiries (Koshik, 2005). By invoking a shared temporal and emotional trajectory, the utterance intensifies the sense of collective joy and national elation, encompassing both the author and the wider readership. Through this construction, the sentence-final ending –nka contributes to an affect-laden narrative voice that foregrounds the author’s stance while simultaneously inviting readers to align with this shared affective experience (Du Bois, 2007).

(d) Issue-raising interrogatives (IRIE)

A fourth functional domain in which the sentence-final ending –nka appears is what may be termed issue-raising interrogatives (IRIE). In this usage, –nka does not serve to elicit information or confirm a candidate answer but to introduce a socially salient question for public consideration. While rhetorical interrogatives (–nka used as RIE) primarily function to dramatize the speaker’s affective stance and invite readers to align emotionally, issue-raising –nka-questions serve a distinct purpose: they urge readers to critically reflect on the issue being foregrounded rather than to affiliate with the author’s emotional evaluation. In this sense, IRIEs operate as stance-guiding devices that frame a public problem and encourage broader engagement with it.

This interpretation aligns with observations in discourse-pragmatic studies showing that interrogatives in public or journalistic writing often function as issue-framing rather than information-seeking acts, prompting readers to consider the author’s framing of a social or political matter (Ilie, 1999). Consistent with Seo’s (1999) description in The Learner’s Dictionary of Korean, this issue-raising function of –nka was attested only in the written corpus, particularly in contexts where authors seek to stimulate critical reflection on matters of public concern.

Example 5 (excerpted from 21st C. Sejong Corpus)

In Example 5, drawn from a newspaper article, the author employs an –nka-marked interrogative to question the political legitimacy behind the merger of two opposition parties during a presidential campaign. By asking kwayen mwuess-i-nka? (‘What would be the great cause?’), the author does not anticipate a direct answer from readers; nor does the question function to mobilize an emotional response, as in rhetorical interrogatives. Instead, the interrogative raises an issue for collective consideration, prompting readers to evaluate the underlying rationale for the party merger. The subsequent discourse elaborates on the author’s critical viewpoint, thereby encouraging readers to engage in reasoned reflection and potentially align with the author’s evaluative position.

By functioning as an IRIE, –nka thus serves as a discursive resource for issue formulation and stance-guided interpretation in written public discourse.

2) –nka as a Self-Addressed Interrogative Ender

In addition to its role as an other-addressed interrogative ender, –nka also appears as a self-addressed interrogative in the spoken corpus. In this function, it indexes the speaker’s uncertainty about propositional content, serving as a mechanism for self-directed questioning rather than eliciting information from a listener. Chae (2024), building on her earlier work (Chae, 2023) and prior Korean linguistics studies, notes that self-directed –nka functions soliloquy-like, reflecting internal evaluation without presupposing a listener’s contribution. While sharing features with confirmation-seeking interrogatives in expressing epistemic uncertainty, self-addressed –nka differs in that it is oriented to the speaker themselves, signaling an introspective, evaluative stance.

Previous research consistently recognizes this introspective function, highlighting –nka’s role in self-reflection and knowledge monitoring (Jeong & Bae, 2020; Lee, 2002; Sohn, 1999). Cross-linguistically, self-directed questions similarly allow speakers to manage cognitive and epistemic states—articulating uncertainty, confirming tentative knowledge to themselves, or planning discourse moves (Heritage, 2012; Stivers & Sidnell, 2005). In Korean, self-addressed –nka likewise externalizes internal deliberation and facilitates monitoring of knowledge without presupposing a responsive addressee.

Example 6 from the spoken corpus illustrates this use: Speaker A inquires about the starting date of her husband’s school (line 1), posing a question within her own information domain.

Example 6 (excerpted from LDC corpus)

Here, B’s utterance indicates uncertainty regarding the specific date. Crucially, this question is not addressed to A, as the requested information falls outside A’s domain of knowledge; B does not expect A to provide a response. Instead, B employs –nka to externally articulate internal evaluation, effectively monitoring her own knowledge state. Subsequently, B continues the narrative without waiting for or receiving confirmation from A, demonstrating the monologic, self-reflective nature of this function of –nka.

This example highlights that self-addressed –nka allows speakers to manage and express epistemic uncertainty independently within spontaneous discourse, without presupposing an interactive addressee. The utterance thus functions as a cognitive and discursive tool, enabling speakers to articulate, test, and monitor their own knowledge while maintaining the flow of discourse. This observation corroborates the broader typological pattern of –nka as a self-addressed interrogative ender, complementing its interactive, other-directed uses.

1) Overall Distribution Across Discourse Types

The frequency distribution of –nka in spoken and written data is summarized in Table 1

The absence of self-addressed –nka in written data aligns with the institutional expectations of newspaper writing. Self-directed questions typically index epistemic uncertainty or internal deliberation, functions well documented in conversational studies (Heritage, 2012). Because journalistic discourse requires writers to project epistemic authority and present information coherently, the display of uncertainty through self-addressed –nka is incompatible with the professional persona expected of journalists.

In contrast, spoken conversation affords a wider range of epistemic practices—including self-monitoring, hesitation, and knowledge checks—allowing speakers to use –nka to externalize internal cognition. This asymmetry reflects well-established distinctions between spoken and written registers (Biber, 1995; Chafe & Danielewicz, 1987), particularly the relative spontaneity of talk and the monologic, argumentative nature of news writing.

2) Distribution of Other-addressed –nka Across Functional Subtypes

Table 2

(a) Information-seeking interrogatives (ISIE)

In spoken conversation, ISIE accounts for only 19.4% of the –nka tokens. This finding aligns closely with Yoon’s (2010) empirical observation that information-requesting is not the most frequent action accomplished by interrogatives in Korean conversation. Based on an extensive analysis of naturally occurring spoken interaction, Yoon (2010) reports that although information-seeking is commonly assumed to be the prototypical function of questions, only 31% of all Korean interrogatives actually perform information-requesting actions. The remaining majority are used for socially and epistemically more complex purposes—such as stance display, alignment seeking, and managing shared knowledge—which exceed the narrow function of soliciting new information.

Against this backdrop, the fact that –nka is used for ISIE in only 7 out of 36 spoken tokens (less than 20%) is fully consistent with Yoon’s distribution: –nka, when deployed in conversation, participates more prominently in epistemic negotiation and stance management rather than straightforward information requests.

In written discourse, no instances of ISIE were found. This is expected given the institutional orientation of journalistic writing: journalists are positioned as providers of information, and therefore the use of interrogatives to solicit information from readers is pragmatically and institutionally incongruous.

(b) Confirmation-seeking interrogatives (CSIE)

Spoken discourse shows a strong preference for CSIE (75%). This mirrors findings in question design research showing that speakers frequently use interrogative forms to seek acknowledgment, alignment, or confirmation regarding shared knowledge, especially in informal or collaborative tasks (Raymond & Heritage, 2006; Enfield, 2010).

In contrast, written discourse shows no instances of CSIE, consistent with the journalistic need to maintain an authoritative epistemic stance. Directly seeking confirmation from readers would violate the epistemic asymmetry central to news reporting, where writers—not readers—are positioned as knowledge providers.

(c) Rhetorical interrogatives (RIE)

A striking contrast emerges in the distribution of rhetorical interrogative enders (RIE), with 5.6% in spoken discourse and 51.6% in written discourse. Rhetorical interrogatives are a well-known device for stance expression, argument structuring, and reader alignment in opinion writing and persuasive discourse (Frank, 1990). Thus, their prominence in journalistic writing is consistent with the argumentative functions of editorials and political commentary.

In casual conversation, RIE is rare because interlocutors typically do not orient to strong argumentative positioning, especially among intimates or peers where affiliative talk and progressivity take precedence.

(d) Issue-raising interrogatives (IRIE)

IRIE occurs only in written discourse (48.4%). This form is characteristic of discourse that seeks to introduce public issues, open argumentative space, and frame topics for further discussion, functions typical of newspaper articles discussing societal problems.

To determine whether IRIE might appear in other types of spoken institutional discourse (e.g., lectures, presentations), four lecture/presentation texts from the 21st Sejong Corpus (10,685 words) were examined. Only two instances of *-nka* were found, both occurring when a professor read aloud written material (e.g., textbook headings). This suggests that IRIE is fundamentally a written discourse phenomenon, tied to monologic issue-framing rather than spontaneous interaction.

3) Summary of Distributional Patterns

Taken together, these findings demonstrate that the distribution of *-nka* arises from the interplay of epistemic asymmetries, mode-specific interactional affordances, and institutional role expectations. In spoken interaction, where knowledge is negotiated moment by moment, *-nka* is mobilized for a wide array of epistemic actions such as self-monitoring and confirmation-checking. In contrast, written discourse—constrained by monologic reasoning and an authoritative stance—restricts its use primarily to rhetorical and issue-raising functions. These contrasts indicate that the functional patterning of *-nka* is not merely a case of linguistic variation but a window into the interactional organization that differentiates spoken and written communicative environments.