Kang, Minjung. 2018. “Functions of I mean in American Talk Shows”. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 26(2). 63~84. This paper aims to find out roles of the discourse marker I mean in American talk shows. Ten interviews from six talk shows were analyzed for the investigation and the results indicate that there are some unique functions of I mean which do not seem to be mentioned in early studies: counter-accounting and footing shift functions. This study suggests that the counter-accounting function of I mean can appear in utterance-initial position when the interviewee does not agree with what the interviewer has mentioned. Also, the interviewee can use I mean as a footing shift marker to switch stances from an informative one to an entertaining one (or vice versa). Since these two functions seem to be connected to the institutional settings and goals of talk shows, it is crucial to study functions of I mean in accordance with types of institutional talk.

Suh, Kyunghee. 2016. “I mean as a Marker of ‘Interpersonal Repair’ in Crisis Negotiation”. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 24(3). 223~247. This study investigates the discourse marker I mean in two transcripts of the 1993 Waco siege negotiations, paying special attention to its discursive use as a marker of ‘interpersonal repair’. Both quantitative and qualitative studies are carried out with a view to presenting its uses by two types of participants – the FBI and the Person of Interest (POI) - and the goals of a given negotiation. Where the FBI debate Judy’s release, I mean is frequently used by the FBI to stress the utmost urgency of having to treat Judy’s wounds; in the other set of data, however, it is used by the POI to bolster his position while blaming the other party, in the context of a more confrontational conversation between the POI and FBI. The finding suggests that I mean in crisis negotiations can be used to indicate that an upcoming adjustment is made in a more strengthening way, providing a noticeable contrast to previous findings where I mean serves as a mitigator, presaging a less-face threatening rephrasing of interpersonal repair. The finding further suggests that I mean’s basic meaning is particularized by both the goals of the talk it occurs and the specific negotiation situation.