The purpose of this thesis is to consider recognition linguistic theory, focusing on different expression structures shown in Korean and Japanese about the same situations. In other words, the aim of my thesis is to analyze what causes two languages t...
The purpose of this thesis is to consider recognition linguistic theory, focusing on different expression structures shown in Korean and Japanese about the same situations. In other words, the aim of my thesis is to analyze what causes two languages to express types of recognition differently, to consider how the two languages show the different meanings, and to elicit language patterns. While Korean has a tendency to express a situation as verbal expression, Japanese has a tendency to express it as nominal expression. The reasons are as follows.
First, Korean tends to be expressed as an [N/A] sentence-structure form like '날씨가 좋네요 (The weather is fine.).' instead of '좋은 날씨네요 (It is fine weather.)'. This is because Korean language has the recognition structure to grasp the situation in relations. By contrast, in the same situation, Japanese tends to be expressed as an [A/N] sentence-structure form. This is because Japanese language has the recognition structure to grasp the situation as a lump. So we can realize that Japanese is the language that has a strong reifcation ability compared with Korean language.
Second, there is a tendency for the Korean infix structure sentence expressed as '있다/계시다‘ to be presented as a [Noun /だ] sentence structure form in Japanese. By analysis, one sees that Korean '있다/계시다’ has more verbal character than Japanese 「いる」. These two languages' recognition structures, when they are presented as different expression structures about the same situations, have the different recognition structures - 'complex atemporal relation' and 'simple atemporal relation'.
Third, a Korean action verb, used as prenominal clause or predicate, appears as a nominal expression in Japanese. The condition that Japanese word formation has a higher productivity than Korean contributes to this phenomenon. Also, when we think about the verbal character of function verbs that the two languages have, Korean doesn't allow ellipsis or ommission because it has a strong verbal character, but Japanese allows easily ellipsis or ommission because it has a weak verbal character. Finally, what in Korean and Japanese is actualized as different expression structures are understood like this. That is, Korean grasps the situation as a sequential scanning way, but Japanese grasps the situation as a summary scanning way. What I confirm through this thesis's experiment and survey is that even though Japanese has this tendency, it does not always show same expressions. The fact is that when they analyze a situation, Japanese is differently expressed according to the notion of the speaker's grasping situation or a discourse context. This is circumstantial evidence that Korean has a fixed point of view, but Japanese has a flexible point of view. When we examine with the recognition grammar view such as 'If the form is different, the meaning is different.', we can tell that Korean has concrete and delicate expressions because it has a verbal expression structure, but Japanese has simple and implicative expressions because it has a nominal expression structure. With these features, I can generalize that Korean language is a concrete language, and Japanese language is an abstract language.
Next things are the reasons why Korean language tends to express with active expressions, but Japanese language tends to express with passive expressions about the same situations.
First, there are cases that Korean intransitive verb expressions correspond to Japanese intransitive verb passive expressions or transitive verb passive expressions. This is a matter related directly to passive productivity. And this comes from the syntactic environment that Japanese passive productivity is higher than Korean. So, I can classify the two languages into a result-centered language and a process-centered language. A result-centered language comes from the reason that agents are excluded in intransitive verb sentences' recognition scope, and a process centered language comes from the reason that agents are foregrounds in intransitive passive verb sentences' recognition scope. Second, Japanese tends to use passive forms about the situation actualized as transitive verb sentence in Korean language, although Japanese has also transitive verb expressions. This is because two languages have different recognition structures. Korean is a situation-centered language, meaning that it separates situation from notional speaker (self), sees the situation as a stage, thinks an agent is the center of the stage, and describes the situation. However, Japanese is considered to be a notional speaker-centered language in which the notional speakers themselves consider the stage. In addition to this, Korean has a fixed point of view to be centered with situation subjects, but Japanese has a flexible point of view to be centered with agents and passive agents according to circumstance context.
Third, Japanese appears with causative passive sentences like 「-させてもらう」 and causative dative expressions as well as causative expressions about situations actualized as causative expressions in Korean. In causative expressions, the 3rd person appears as a new participant in a situation, and they cause a passive causative subject to make a change in the situation. So, the causative subject is the most original agent to be the starting point of energy. Therefore, recognition pattern seems to be a transitive verb sentence pattern in which a passive causative subject becomes a background, and a causative subject becomes a trajector. However causative passive sentences and the recognition structure of causative dative expressions like 「-させてもらう」have a recognition pattern similar to passive expression. This is because they are the structures that passive causative subject becomes the general view and a causative subject becomes the background. This Japanese expression is considered the production of conventional imaginary such that when we construct a situation, notional speakers intend to understand themselves relating to the situation. That is to say, while Korean's situation viewing point is a canonical viewing arrangement, Japanese is a language in which an egocentric viewing arrangement strongly functions.
Fourth, in the meaning of character, the Korean dative expression confronts the Japanese '주다/「与える」' pattern and the ‘받다/「受ける」’ pattern used as main verbs in its dative expression. But the two languages are the same from the point of view that they have transitive characters that there are no grammatical and syntactical X-bar changes. However, in the Japanese language, there is a dative expression like the 3rd patterns 「あげる, くれる, もらう」that are restricted by grammatical person and treating relations. Also, while only '주다‘ is used an assistant verb in Korean, in Japanese, all verbs above can be used as assistant verbs. Korean '-아/어 주다’, a dative expression, has an active recognition pattern that makes a situational subject as subject into a reference point. But the Japanese assistant verb dative expression has a different usage according to relations of in and out, like conferrer and receiver, and relations of up and down. The expression「-てくれる」 has the same recognition as an active recognition structure that makes a situational subject as subject into a reference point like point as in Korean, but 「-てもらう」has a different recognition pattern that is same with the passive structure that makes an agent a background with the result that the passive agent become a foreground. The following is the summary of contrastive concepts between the two languages in this thesis.
◁표 있음▷(원문을 참조하세요)
，免费韩语论文，韩语毕业论文 |
