Volume 3,Issue 9
From Kinship Address to Cultural Symbol: A Morphological and Socio-Historical Analysis of the Korean Pronoun Jane (자네)
This study presents a comprehensive morphological and socio-historical analysis of the Korean second-person pronoun Jane (자네), tracing its evolution from a medieval reflexive form to a highly specialized kinship term and, further, to a potent cultural symbol. Through an integrated approach combining historical linguistics, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, and linguistic anthropology, the paper argues that Jane (자네) has undergone a process of cultural-semantic metamorphosis. Rather than fading into obsolescence, it narrowed functionally to occupy a precise relational niche—primarily as an address from parents-in-law (cheobumo, 처부모) to son-in-law (sawi, 사위)—while simultaneously accumulating dense indexical meanings. As its everyday use contracted, Jane (자네) became a marked symbol of traditional authority and hierarchical integration, enabling its regeneration across pedagogical, media, literary, and public discourse fields. The paper thus challenges conventional measures of linguistic vitality, proposing instead that a form's persistence may be sustained through distributed symbolic utility rather than frequency of colloquial use. By modeling Jane (자네)'s adaptive trajectory, this study offers broader insights into the mechanisms through which language retains historical social structures and negotiates cultural continuity amid modernization.
[1] Benveniste É, 1971, Problems in General Linguistics. University of Miami Press.
[2] Hwang M, 2001, The origin of the second-person pronoun ‘Jane’ (자네). Korean Linguistics, 37: 197–217.
[3] Lee H, 2001, The Bibliography and Language of the Seokbo Sangjeol (석보상절). Taehak Publishing.
[4] Yoo S, 2004, The use of the second-person pronouns ‘Dangsin’ (당신), ‘Jane’ (자네), ‘Neo’ (너). Korean Linguistics, 23: 121–147.
[5] Kim H, 2020, A pragmatic reconsideration of the Korean honorific system: The cases of ‘Jane’ (자네) and ‘Dangsin’ (당신). Discourse and Cognition, 27(2): 1–25.
[6] Gal S, 2016, Sociolinguistic differentiation. In N. Coupland (Ed.), Sociolinguistics: Theoretical Debates. Cambridge University Press.
[7] Irvine JT, Gal S, 2000, Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In P. V. Kroskrity (Ed.), Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities (pp. 35–83). School of American Research Press.
[8] Lucy JA (Ed.), 1993, Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
9[9] Brown P, Levinson SC, 1987, Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press.
[10] Milroy J, 2001, Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5(4): 530–555.