Existing contrastive studies on Korean and Chinese causative expressions are predominantly focused on theoretical dimensions. However, studies on corresponding relations between the two languages through an analysis of actual language usage aspect hav...
Existing contrastive studies on Korean and Chinese causative expressions are predominantly focused on theoretical dimensions. However, studies on corresponding relations between the two languages through an analysis of actual language usage aspect have been exceptional. This study aimed at examining the varied use of Korean and Chinese causative expressions in everyday life. In order to do so, it directly utilized the constructed Korean·Chinese parallel corpus. The researcher abstracted analogous texts from newss and dramas on a similar scale. In total, there were approximately 1,700,000 syntactic words extracted. From this sample, 8,191 were examples of Korean causative expressions while 7,188 were Chinese were examples of causative expressions. In doing so, their respective types and case-frame structures were analyzed and the corresponding relations between them according to these types and structures were described.
Chapter 1 presented the purposes and significance of this study. It also introduced in details the sources, subjects, methodology used in this study. Moreover, it synthesized the previous studies on Korean·Chinese causative expressions and identified the problems associated with such studies.
Chapter 2 examined the types and case-frames of the existing studies in the Korean and Chinese academia. It then synthesized these types and case-frames from these researches. In doing so, a structured analysis framework which examined the forms and case-frames of the Korean·Chinese causative expressions was presented.
Out of a total of approximately 1,700,000 syntactic word-corpus, there were 8, 191 and 7,188 examples of written Korean and Chinese causative expressions respectively that were extracted and examined in Chapter 3. This chapter further compared the scrutinized forms and case-frames of the Korean and Chinese causative expressions which were obtained from both written and spoken languages of the parallel corpus on a similar scale. After which, commonly-used causative verbs with the highest frequency obtained from written and spoken languages were tabulated and presented. Moreover, causative verbs listed on Korean language textbooks were also examined and the lists obtained were classified as well.
In terms of Korean·Chinese contrastive direction, Chapter 4 analyzed the trend of the corresponding Chinese expressions according to three parts based on forms and case-frames, namely, Section 1 Causative Form, Section 2 Causative Form and Section 3 Causative Form. Specifically, it delved into whether there is a correlation between the Korean causative forms and case-frames and their corresponding Chinese expressions. If there is, factors that could have caused such correlation were deemed to be determined. It should also be noted that Korean causative expressions could correspond not only with Chinese marked and unmarked causative forms but with Chinese passive expressions as well. Moreover, a case of ‘no correspondence’ could also emerge. Furthermore, since results revealed that the each section of Korean causative forms (Sections 1, 2 and 3) has corresponding Chinese expressions, this chapter verified whether there indeed exists a regular trend. Also, it investigated whether differences in the corresponding aspects based on the written and spoken languages exist between the two.
In terms of Chinese·Korean contrastive direction, Chapter 5 analyzed the trend of corresponding Korean expressions based on the form and structure of the Chinese marked causative forms (让, 使, 令, 叫, 把, 给). Specifically, it investigated whether there is a correlation between the Chinese causative forms and structure and their corresponding Korean expressions. If there is, factors that could have caused it would be identified. It should also be bore in mind that Chinese causative expressions could also have ‘no correspondence’ not only with Korean causative expressions but also with their passive expressions as well. It is revealed in this chapter that the Chinese marked causative forms (‘让, 使, 令, 叫, 把, 给) correspond with Korean expressions comparatively well in general. Moreover, this chapter considered whether differences in corresponding aspects based on the written and spoken languages exist between the two.
Chapter 6 synthesized the examined trend of the corresponding relations found in chapters 4 and 5. After which, the Korean causative expressions and their corresponding Chinese expressions were scrutinized and vice versa. Results revealed that in the Korean·Chinese contrastive aspect, there emerged a ‘causative expression, passive expression, and no correspondence’ between the Korean causative expressions and their corresponding Chinese expressions. In the same manner, these can also be found in the Chinese·Korean contrastive aspect between the Chinese causative expressions and their corresponding Korean counterparts. Moreover, it was also discovered that differences in the corresponding aspects in both written and spoken languages existed. Also, Korean·Chinese contrasts are more complicated and varied than Chinese·Korean contrasts. This can be explained by the fact that there exists a broad category of Chinese marked and unmarked causative forms. Similarly, Korean causative expressions can be said to be more complicated and varied compared with their Chinese counterparts in terms of case-frame contrastive aspect.
This is a substantiated study which utilized a parallel corpus. Through this, an analysis of the trend of the Korean causative expressions and their Chinese counterparts were carefully analyzed and vice versa. Based on the results, the causative expressions of both languages are not merely one-to-one corresponding relations as claimed by the existing studies. Rather, this study contends the opposite. Corresponding relations in terms of causative expressions between the two languages are many-to-many relations and are such varied and complicated. Furthermore, passive and even ‘no correspondence’ relations exist between the two languages. It is interesting to note that ‘no correspondence’ relations emerged the highest among the features of the two languages’ respective causative expressions based on forms and case-frames, examined results in similarities, and causative category. Guided by the causative contrast framework all throughout, it can be said that this study is a meaningful contribution in contrastive studies specifically not just in contrastive forms but also in case-frame contrasts.
참고문헌 (Reference)
|
