This aims to compare Korean and Chinese aspect markers and identify the similarities and differences between them. The first chapter explores the Korean and Chinese aspect categories and classifications of aspect-related verbs. Then it reviews l...
This aims to compare Korean and Chinese aspect markers and identify the similarities and differences between them. The first chapter explores the Korean and Chinese aspect categories and classifications of aspect-related verbs. Then it reviews literature about comparisons between Korean and Chinese aspect markers and problems in the literature were evaluated.
Chapter 2 re-investigates the definition of aspects and classifies them into different categories. According to Hockett’s (1958) traditional viewpoint, aspect was defined as the grammaticalization of an event’s developmental phases. Then on the basis of Ko Yong-Kun’s (2004/2009) prospective phase, progressive phase, and perfective phase, inceptive phase and resultative durative phase are added. Aspects are classified into prospective aspect, inceptive aspect, progressive aspect, perfective aspect, and resultative durative aspect. The Theory of Prominence by Bhat(1999) is adopted to describe the relationships among aspect, tense and modality. Korean is regarded as tense-prominent language while Chinese is treated as an aspect-prominent language. According to the Pan-tense category established by Hong Jong-Seon(2008), Pan-aspect category is proposed in Chinese accordingly.
Chapter 3 explores the forms of aspects in both Korean and Chinese. In Korean, Korean auxiliary verbs are typical aspect markers. In Chinese, Chinese verbal particle, Chinese phase complement and words like “zai” and “jiangyao” are considered as aspect markers. Further, Korean auxiliary verbs and Chinese verbal particle and phase compliment are compared on the basis of “dependence”, “insertion”, “substitution”, “ellipsis”, “inversion”, “irrelevance of argument”, and “continuous use.”
Chapter 4 establishes two semantic features, “dynamic” and “durative”, and classifies state verbs, activity verbs, and semelfactive verbs accordingly. Then the morphological, syntactic and semantic bases are proposed. Vendler’s (1967) and Smith’s (1991/1997) “accomplishment verbs” and “semelfactive verbs” are questioned. This categorizes them into state verbs whereas the “achievement verbs” are classified into “semelfactive verbs”. Examples are provided to illustrate that semantically similar verbs in both languages do not necessarily correspond to each other one-to-one.
Chapter 5 revolves around that fact that the aspect markers from both Korean and Chinese correspond to each other to a certain degree in terms of prospective aspect, inceptive aspect, progressive aspect, perfective aspect, and resultative durative aspect. A comprehensive comparison between the two languages is conducted on combinations of aspect markers and verbs or aspect markers and other grammatical forms.
Firstly, the typical progressive aspect marker in Korean is “-ko iss1-” while “zai” and “zhe2” are mainly used in Chinese. Unlike most literature, this divides “zhe2” into two categories: marked usage and unmarked usage. In Chinese, the difference in usage of “zai” and unmarked “zhe2” lies in the [/dynamic] strength of the verb with which it connects. “-ko iss1-” does not have such requirements. The marked “zhe2” requires the verbs that it functions with to have [/continuous] and [-telic]. However, “-ko iss1-”and “zai” have no such restrictions. Additionally, “zai” requires the help of referential time in the sentence while “-ko iss1-” and “zhe2” have no such requirements. The differences mentioned above lead to various presentations when those three aspect markers are combined with verbs and other grammatical forms.
Second, there are two resultative durative aspect markers in Korean, “-ko iss2-” and “-eo iss-”, while Chinese mainly uses “zhe1”. “-ko iss2-” and “-eo iss-” in Korean require [/result], and the main differences between them are whether they function with transitive or intransitive verbs. Compared to Korean, Chinese “zhe1” has a rather small range of verbs with which it functions. Those verbs usually have a semantic feature of [/adhesive], and they have no restrictions on transitive or intransitive verbs. Moreover, though some verbs in Chinese cannot function with “zhe1”, they can be combined with “zhe1” in the presence of place or instrument adverbial. However, “-ko iss2-” and “-eo iss-” have no such usage. Lastly, although some transitive verbs in Chinese cannot be used with “zhe1”, there are no such restrictions in Chinese existential sentences. However, the features of the transitive verbs are changed, and in such occasions in Korean, the corresponding verbs cannot be combined with “-ko iss2-” and “-eo iss-”.
Third, in terms of the perfective aspects, the mainly explores “-eo beoli-” in Korean and “diao” in Chinese. Those two aspect makers both function with verbs with [/negative] semantic meanings. However, “-eo beoli-” in Korean can function with verbs describing feelings and with the meaning of [/departure] while “diao” in Chinese cannot function with verbs describing feelings. When Chinese “diao” functions with [/departure] verbs, they behave like idioms. Furthermore, because “-eo beoli-” also functions like modal verbs, it can function with almost all verbs except state verbs. Chinese “diao” has a weak feature of modality, and hence only functions with extremely limited verbs that have a [/positive] or [/gain] meaning.
Fourth, this investigates Korean “-eoji-” and Chinese “qilai” on the basis of inceptive aspects. Korean “-eoji-” can function together with state verbs and a limited number of intransitive verbs. When functioning with certain transitive verbs, “-eoji-” shows a passive meaning. On the other hand, Chinese “qilai” can present various meanings, including inceptive, resultative, topic, and direction. However, its meaning depends on the context and meaning of the verb it functions with and is not affected by whether or not it is a transitive or intransitive verb, unlike Korean “-e ji-”.
Fifth, the explores the prospective aspects of Korean “-ge doe-” and Chinese “jiangyao”. Unlike Korean “-ge doe-”, Chinese “jiangyao” has restrictions when functioning with state verbs.
In the above investigation, it is found that most aspect markers in Korean and Chinese are in the process of grammaticalization, and hence they still hold certain semantic meanings and are restricted when combined with verbs or other grammatical forms. The representative forms of aspects in two languages, i.e. Korean auxiliary verbs and Chinese verbal particles and phase complements, have a lot of commonalities. However, they also have a lot of differences in usage due to characteristics of individual languages. This only investigates a few aspect markers in Korean and Chinese, and a more comprehensive and systematic investigation is proposed for future research.
，韩语毕业论文，韩语论文范文 |
