| 本文以汉族人进修韩国语的角度，在共时性研究办法下，从韩汉语本体论角度对韩汉语主从复句的分类和各个类型的特色停止了综合性的考核和归结；而且运用比较说话学、语用学、统计学的研究办法，实在对韩国语和汉语的因果关系、前提关系、妥协关系等三种主从复句互相间的对应景象，停止了体系的考核、剖析和比较。经由过程现实翻译语料比较剖析可得知，韩国语的“（？）”因果关系复句在汉语中年夜多用“由于－一所以－一”因果复句来表示，相反，汉语的“由于逐个所以一”因果复句用韩国语来表示时，运用习用型“（？）”因果复句情势和“（？）”等单句情势，远弘远于运用由衔接语尾“（？）”组成的复句情势。别的，和汉语“既然一就一”因果复句对应的前四位是“（？）（30。8%）”、“（？）（25。6%）”、“（？））（7。7%）”、，“（？）（5。1%）”；“乃至”因果复句在原文中共涌现11次，译文中除省略4次，和“（？）”因果复句对应的只要2次，其他和“（？）”等情势对应。韩国语的“（？）”前提复句都可用汉语的前提复句和假定复句来表示，“（？）”前提复句可用汉语的前提复句和妥协复句来表示，但现实翻译语估中，“（？），”前提复句和汉语假定复句的对应频率却高于和前提复句或其他关系复句的对应频率，“（？）”前提复句和“只要逐个才逐个”需要前提复句的对应频率高于和无前提复句、妥协关系复句的对应频率。反之，汉语的充足前提复句和韩国语的“（？）”前提复句对应；需要前提复句和“（？）”前提复句对应；比起和韩国语的前提复句的对应，汉语的无前提复句和韩国语的妥协关系复句、选择关系复句有着更好的对应关系；汉语的假定复句重要和韩国语的前提复句对应，有些也能够和妥协关系对应。韩国语的妥协关系复句广泛都能和汉语的妥协关系复句对应，有些情形和汉语的前提、假定、转机等关系复句也能很好地对应，韩语论文网站，韩语论文范文，好比“（？）”妥协关系复句和汉语转机关系复句的对应频率就很高。反之，汉语的“即便一也”妥协关系标志和“就是／就算／哪怕—也”妥协关系标志和韩国语的妥协关系标志对应，然则这两种关系标志和韩国语助词的对应频率却很高，分离是31%和22。7%；汉语的“虽然一一一也（还）”和韩国语对峙关系标志的对应频率远远高于和妥协关系标志的对应频率。总之，韩国语和汉语中都有主从复句这一语法领域，但它们的剖断尺度各有分歧又各具特点，本文运用多种研究办法，来考核韩语和汉语互相间的表达措施，进一步提醒它们在复句构造认定上的差别。愿望本文的研究可以或许在必定水平上丰硕韩汉语复句研究的实际，在韩国语和对外汉语的教授教养及研究上起到必定的指点感化，在韩汉语互译理论上特殊是机械翻译上供给一些赞助。 Abstract: The to the point of view of the Han people to learn Korean, in the total of research methods, on the angle of principal and subordinate complex sentences in Korean and Chinese classification and various types of features from the Han Chinese ontology stopped comprehensive assessment and resolution; and application of learning to speak, pragmatics, statistical research methods, really the causality of Korean and Chinese, premise, compromise the relationship between three main subordinate clauses each other between the corresponding scene, stop the system of evaluation, analysis and comparison. Through the process of practical translation corpus comparative analysis shows that the Korean "(?)" Causal complex sentences in Chinese middle-aged night use "because - so - a" causal complex sentences to express. On the contrary, Chinese "because of one by one so a" causal complex sentences in Korean to represent using conventional type "(?)" Causal situation and "(?)" One such situation, far outweigh the application by the connection ending "(?)" Composition of the complex situation. The other, and the Chinese "since a" causal corresponding four "(?) (30. 8%) "and" (?) (25. 6%) "and" (?)) (7. 7%) "and" (?) (5. 1%) ";" and "the emergence of causal complex sentences in the text in the translation of 11 times, in addition to omit 4 times, and" (?)" The corresponding causal sentence 2 times as long as the other, and "(?)" The corresponding situation etc.. Korean "(?)" The premise of sentence are available in Chinese sentence and complex sentence to express the premise assumption, "(?)" The premise of Chinese sentence available sentence and complex sentence to express the premise of compromise, but the reality of language translation assessment, "(?) , "premise complex sentences and Chinese assumed sentence corresponding frequency is higher than and premise of sentence or other relative clauses of the corresponding frequency." (?) " Prerequisite sentence and "as long as one by one and only one" need precondition clauses of corresponding frequency higher and unconditional sentences and compromise between the clauses of the corresponding frequency. On the other hand, a sufficient condition of Chinese and Korean sentence "(?)" The premise of sentence correspondence; premise sentence and "(?)" Premise sentence corresponding; than Korean sentence on the premise of corresponding, the Chinese no prerequisite sentence and Korean compromise between the clauses, sentence relationship has a better corresponding relationship; assumed important sentences and Korean premise sentence corresponding to the Chinese, some will also be able to compromise relationship. Korean compromise between the clauses are widely and Chinese compromise between the clauses corresponds, in some cases and Chinese premise and assumption, transit and other relative clauses can also very good correspondences, like "(?)" The corresponding frequency compromise relations between complex sentence and complex sentence of Chinese relations is very high. On the contrary, Chinese "even a" compromise mark relationship and "is / even if / even -" compromise compromise between mark relationship and Korean corresponding signs, however the two mark relationship and Korean auxiliary corresponding frequency is very high, separation is 31% and 22. 7%; Chinese "although 111 is (also) and Korean confrontation relation between the corresponding frequency far above and compromise relation between the corresponding frequency. In short, Korean and Chinese are main subordinate clauses of this grammatical field, but their section off each scale differences, each with its own characteristics, using several research methods, to assess the Korean and Chinese each expression method further remind their difference in the identification of the structure of complex sentences. Wish the research can perhaps to a certain level rich Han Chinese complex sentence research, in Korean and Chinese as a foreign language teaching and research play a certain guidance role, in Korean and Chinese translation theory special machine translation to supply some sponsorship. 目录: |
