Korean honorifics
Enable an AI agent to recognise Korean honorific choices, assess their fit to a documented interaction, and propose context-sensitive wording while preserving uncertainty about social expectations.
Bundle → Layer → Finding → Questions Filled
6 bundles · 11 layers · 16 findings · 26 questions
Participants and honorification targets Identify who speaks, who is addressed and who is referred to before interpreting honorific marking.
Interaction roles
Resolve the participants relevant to the utterance, including omitted or indirectly identified participants.
Speaker, addressee and referent map
Record participant roles and distinguish explicit identification from contextual inference.
- Who is speaking, who is being addressed, and which people are referred to in this utterance? definition
- What preceding discourse supports the identification of an omitted subject or implicit addressee? provenance
Honorification target links
Associate each relevant expression with the participant whose treatment it helps establish.
Separate target assignment
Keep the target of a sentence ending distinct from the target of predicate, particle or lexical honorification.
- Which participant is targeted by each sentence ending, -(으)시- occurrence and honorific lexical choice? measurement
- Does this analysis incorrectly assume that honouring the subject also determines how the addressee is treated? boundary
Grammatical honorific resources Describe sentence endings and subject-honorific marking as independently inspectable resources.
Speech-level endings
Identify endings and assign speech-level labels using an explicitly named descriptive framework.
Ending and level analysis
Record the actual ending, sentence type and supported speech-level classification.
- What ending occurs, and how does the selected reference classify it for this sentence type? definition
- Does the available utterance support one speech-level label, or must the classification remain ambiguous? boundary
Subject-honorific marking
Inspect -(으)시- and its relationship to the predicate, subject and discourse context.
-(으)시- form and interpretation
Record the marker's occurrence or absence and the evidence for its referential interpretation.
- Where does -(으)시- occur in the predicate, and which referent is understood as its target? measurement
- What contextual and grammatical evidence would justify adding, retaining or removing this marker? action
Lexical and address choices Capture honorification expressed through vocabulary, particles and ways of naming or addressing people.
Honorific and humble expressions
Analyse lexical and particle choices together with the participants and meanings they involve.
Lexical choice and role alignment
Record the contextual interpretation of alternatives such as 주다, 드리다 and 주시다 without treating them as interchangeable politeness labels.
- For the expression used, who performs the action, who receives it, and whose treatment changes? definition
- Which dictionary entry or attested example supports the proposed honorific or humble interpretation in this construction? provenance
Titles and address
Inspect names, role titles, kinship terms, suffixes and avoided address expressions in their local setting.
Address choice fit
Record how a person is addressed or mentioned, including stated preferences and differences between direct address and reference.
- Is the expression a direct address or a third-person reference, and what supports the use of 씨, 님, a title or a kinship term here? boundary
- What address preference or established local practice should a proposed replacement preserve? action
Situated use and register change Relate observable choices to relationships, activities and unfolding interaction.
Relationship and setting
Record interaction-relevant expectations without reducing register selection to age or rank alone.
Contextual expectations
Distinguish participant preferences, institutional conventions and analyst assumptions about suitable usage.
- What evidence establishes the participants' familiarity, roles and expectations for 존댓말 or 반말 in this encounter? provenance
- Which missing contextual fact could change the recommended ending or address expression? action
Turn-by-turn register
Track changes across turns and participant responses to those changes.
Register shifts and uptake
Record a switch in forms separately from hypotheses about intimacy, distancing, humour, conflict or quotation.
- At which turn does the ending, address term or honorific marking change, and what activity accompanies that change? measurement
- Does the recipient's response support an interpretation of the switch, or is its social meaning unresolved? boundary
Evidence, variation and agent decisions Ground classifications and recommendations in attributable evidence while retaining disagreement and contextual limits.
Descriptive frameworks and variation
Record how sources define honorific categories and which populations or settings their claims cover.
Attributed analysis and judgments
Preserve competing classifications and acceptability judgments with their source, scope and supporting examples.
- Which reference defines the speech-level inventory and the distinction between honorification and politeness used here? provenance
- Do differing judgments concern grammar, institutional prescription, regional usage, generation or the specific interaction? boundary
Context-qualified intervention
Turn the analysis into explainable annotations, revisions or requests for missing information.
Revision with explicit assumptions
Propose wording only with a clear account of the intended participant treatment and the assumptions supporting it.
- Which ending, marker, lexical item or address term should change to achieve the intended treatment of each participant? action
- Should the agent supply one revision, offer context-dependent alternatives or request clarification because the evidence is insufficient? action
Evidence and external alignment What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.
Reported evidence
Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.
Check these first
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these check these first hold for the sense of Korean honorifics this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Kinds and varieties
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of Korean honorifics this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Real-world use
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of Korean honorifics this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Failure modes and hazards
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of Korean honorifics this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Regional variation
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of Korean honorifics this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of Korean honorifics this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Classifiers Filled
- Family
- Thing Registry
- Category
- Activities and processes
- Entry kind
- thing
- Plane
- ACT
- Domain
- ACT.ACT
What it is Filled
Korean honorifics are grammatical, lexical, and interactional resources through which speakers express respect toward referents and position themselves socially relative to addressees, with choices shaped by relationships, setting, and communicative intent.
In scope
- Addressee-oriented speech levels and their realisation in sentence endings
- Subject honorification, including the prefinal marker -(으)시-
- Honorific and humble vocabulary, particles, titles and address expressions
- Relationships among speaker, addressee and referents that inform honorific choices
- Register shifts, mixed marking and interpretations within situated interaction
- Evidence, variation and uncertainty behind judgments of appropriate usage
Out of scope
- Korean grammar and vocabulary beyond their contribution to honorification
- General Korean etiquette, including bowing and seating arrangements
- Korean society or age hierarchy treated as a complete social model
- Honorific systems of other languages
- A complete Korean language curriculum or proficiency assessment
- Personal identity records beyond interaction-relevant roles and stated preferences
Why it exists Filled
Enable an AI agent to recognise Korean honorific choices, assess their fit to a documented interaction, and propose context-sensitive wording while preserving uncertainty about social expectations.
Distinguishing features Filled
- The expression must be interpreted within Korean linguistic usage; a respectful gesture alone is not an instance.
- Record separately whom a sentence ending addresses and whom a predicate or lexical choice honours; these need not be the same person.
- Distinguish grammatical honorific marking from perceived politeness: one does not by itself establish the other.
- Distinguish speech level from subject honorification rather than treating all honorific forms as a single ascending scale.
- Require interactional evidence before treating a change of ending or address term as evidence of changed intimacy, disrespect or status.
What robots and AI may and may not do Filled
Must not
- Use plain or familiar forms to address users or third parties where respect is expected.
- Present one speech level as always correct regardless of relationship and setting.
- Use honorific choices to infer and record people's age, rank or relationships without consent.
Only with a human decision
- Choosing the register of formal messages sent on someone's behalf.
May
- Explain Korean honorific forms and how speakers choose them.
- Translate with the speech level that suits the relationship, noting where the choice is uncertain.
Moral aspects Filled
- Wrong honorifics can offend, embarrass or damage relationships.
- Honorific systems reflect social hierarchies that some speakers are working to change.
Who is affected
- Korean speakers
- Learners
- People addressed in messages
Owners Filled
Steward
Nobody owns the language; national language institutes give guidance on its standard form.
Links to other meta-models Filled
parent
- Q5897044 - registry parent class
What else AI and robots need to interact with it Filled
Identity and identifiers required Filled
- Vercy registry: vr.tr.korean-honorifics
- Wikidata: Q467885 (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q467885)
Direct properties not applicable Not applicable
- Honorification target: Expression linked to addressee, subject referent, other referent or multiple targets; unresolved where necessary
- Speech-level classification: Source-attributed Korean speech-level label, with mixed, ambiguous and unclassified values
- Honorific realisation: Sentence ending, -(으)시-, particle, lexical honorific, humble expression, title or address term; multiple values allowed
- Participant relationship: Documented role, relative seniority, familiarity, institutional relationship and expressed address preferences
- Interaction setting: Conversation, workplace exchange, service encounter, classroom, public address, written correspondence or other documented setting
- Local register trajectory: Stable, shifting, mixed, quoted, repaired or insufficient context
- Appropriateness assessment: Supported, contested, context-dependent or unresolved, with evidence and assessor perspective
Plane ACT: no invented physical properties.
Recognition not applicable Not applicable
Not applicable
Korean honorifics are linguistic resources identified through language and context rather than a distinctive physical appearance.
Capabilities and actions required Filled
- Annotate Korean utterances with honorific forms, their targets and uncertain analyses.
- Compare alternative formulations while explaining changes in addressee treatment and referent treatment separately.
- Request missing relationship or setting information before recommending a consequential register choice.
- Detect shifts or mismatches for contextual review without automatically labelling them errors.
- Generate context-qualified revisions that preserve propositional content and documented address preferences.
- Record competing speaker judgments and the evidence supporting each interpretation.
Hazards and failure modes required Filled
- Inappropriate honorific choices can cause offence or imply unintended distance, intimacy or disrespect.
- Rigid assumptions about age, gender or status can reproduce stereotypes and misrepresent relationships.
- Translation that removes or exaggerates honorific distinctions can distort characterization and communicative intent.
Standards and interfaces not applicable Not applicable
Not applicable
No single formal standard or regulation governs contextually appropriate Korean honorific choices across interactions.
Context of use required Filled
- Korean honorifics occur in conversation, correspondence, public communication and dialogue across formal and informal settings.
- Speakers use speech levels, honorific vocabulary and grammatical marking to express respect and manage relationships with listeners and people being discussed.
- Translation and language assistance require attention to the relationship, setting and speaker intent.
Sources Filled
- Wikidata item Q467885: Korean honorifics - identity and sense of the item
- Wikipedia: Korean honorifics - general description of the item
Open questions
- Which descriptive references should anchor the speech-level inventory, and how should disagreements about category boundaries be represented?
- How should this model represent disputed or extended uses of -(으)시-, including examples whose apparent target is not a person?
- What evidence is needed to distinguish regional, generational, institutional and individual variation in judgments of appropriate honorific use?
- How should reported speech, fictional dialogue and digitally mediated interaction alter assumptions about speaker, addressee and register?
- Under what documented conditions do expectations about honouring a referent change with the addressee, including practices discussed under 압존법?
Machine files
Provenance
thing registry research (pass 2) · unreviewed
Built from: models/things/publications/thing-q467885/spec.json