This thesis is a comparative study of tense expressions in Korean and Thai. It aims to analyze the similarities and differences between the two languages, with the emphasis on how certain words or phrases are used to indicate specific time frames of a...
This thesis is a comparative study of tense expressions in Korean and Thai. It aims to analyze the similarities and differences between the two languages, with the emphasis on how certain words or phrases are used to indicate specific time frames of an action in each language. The main reason why Korean and Thai are chosen for this comparative study is due to the vast differences between these two languages which make second language teaching and learning difficult. As a member of Altaic language family, Korean is agglutinative, forming words by adding inflectional endings to the end of a stem to convey grammatical functions. The specific references to a time at which an action happens is therefore indicated by affixes added to verbs. In contrast to Korean, Thai belongs to the Sino-Tibetan language family. It is characterized as an isolating language that uses specific grammatical words, rather than inflection, to express syntactic relations within sentences. Instead of indicating by affixes added to verbs, specifying tenses in Thai is achieved by using such add-on words as time adverbials and auxiliary verbs.
This thesis is divided into five chapters. Chapter One presents the topic and provides the literature review and the scope of the study. The findings of the literature review reveal the difficulties of Thai learners in mastering verb tenses in Korean while there is lack of prior research studies on such a topic, making it necessary for further investigation. Chapter Two concentrates on an explanation of contrastive analysis theory and a specification for measuring time, including time stand, speech time, and cognition time. Korean School Grammar proposes that a time reference in Korean can be characterized into two systems; a past, present, and future trichotomy, and a past and non-past dichotomy. Unlike Korean, a time reference in Thai can only be described using the trichotomy classification. As a result, this thesis employs the trichotomy classification of tenses as the frame of analysis.
Chapter Three provides the theoretical framework. It gives an explanation regarding a mechanism for expressing past, present, and future tense in Korean and Thai. The analysis focuses on the comparison between five pre-final endings added to verbs in Korean, including past tense makers ‘eoss(-었-)’, ‘eosseoss(-었었-)’, ‘deo(-더-)’, present tense maker ‘neun(-(느)ㄴ-)’, and future tense marker ‘gess(-겠-)’, and the nine auxiliary verbs in Thai, including ‘ได้/dâj/’, ‘เคย/khɤ:y/’, ‘แล้ว/lɛ:ˊw/’, ‘เพิ่ง/phɤ:ˆŋ/’, ‘กำลัง/kamlaŋ/’, ‘อยู่/yu:ˋ/’, ‘กำลัง...อยู่/kamlaŋ...yu:ˋ/’, ‘จะ/cɑʔ/’ and ‘คงจะ/khoʔŋcaʔ/’.
Chapter Four gives the details pertaining to how each of the five tense markers in Korean and each of the nine auxiliary verbs in Thai is used to show a specific timeframe of an action. The similarities and differences in terms of tense expressions between Thai and Korean are then disclosed through the contrastive analysis. The analysis shows that the Korean past tense marker ‘eoss(-었-)’ added to verbs to indicate past actions is equivalent to the Thai auxiliary verbs ‘ได้/dâj/’, ‘เคย/khɤ:y/’, ‘แล้ว/lɛ:ˊw/’ and ‘เพิ่ง/phɤ:ˆŋ/’ whereas the Korean past tense marker ‘eosseoss(-었었-)’ added to verbs to make past perfect tense is similar to the word ‘เคย/khɤ:y/’ in Thai. There is no relevant comparable Thai auxiliary verb that expresses the speaker’s recollection as the Korean past tense maker ‘deo(-더-)’. Yet it should be noted that the speaker’s recollection in Thai can be expressed through certain verbs, for example, ‘เห็น/heʔˊn/’, ‘ได้ยินว่า/dâjyinwa:ˋ/’, รู้สึกว่า/rûsɯkwa:ˋ/, ‘คิดว่า/khidwa:ˋ/’. All these verbs are most similar in meaning to the Korean past tense maker ‘deo(-더-)’.
In terms of the present tense, the Korean present tense marker ‘neun(-(느)ㄴ-)’ can be translated as ‘กำลัง/kamlaŋ/’, ‘อยู่/yu:ˋ/’, ‘กำลัง...อยู่/kamlaŋ...yu:ˋ/’ in Thai. In addition, the Korean future tense marker ‘gess(-겠-)’ resembles to the Thai auxiliary verbs ‘จะ/cɑʔ/’. This future tense marker ‘gess(-겠-)’ also has the same meaning as ‘คงจะ/khoʔŋcaʔ/’ when it is used to show a speaker’s speculation. However, it is incorrect to translate ‘gess(-겠-)’ as ‘จะ/cɑʔ/’ or ‘คงจะ/khoʔŋcaʔ/’ if the speaker use it to talk about one’s ability. In this case, the most appropriate translation for ‘gess(-겠-)’ should be the Thai auxiliary verbs ‘สามารถ...ได้/sa:ma:d...dâj/’.
The last chapter summarizes and concludes the discussion and analysis of tense expression in Korean and Thai. This comparative study is expected to provide a more nuance understanding of language differences and help Thai and Korean learners to be able to choose the right and appropriate way to express tenses when translating Thai into Korean and vice versa. It is also hoped that this research study to lead to a more effective method in teaching and learning Korean or Thai as a second language.
，韩语论文，韩语毕业论文 |
