Earticle

When considering grammatical characteristics of a language, we must focus on properties which are rare or infrequent among the languages over the world. Most of the properties adduced by the so-called theory of (Ural-)Altaic common features, when viewed from modern typological viewpoints, are not confined to (Ural-)Altaic, but can be found in other families and areas. Moreover, many of them are quite common among world languages, so cannot be considered to be evidences of genetic affinity. On the other hand, Korean and Japanese have many properties of the Circum-Pacific Mega Linguistic Area, as well as the Eurasian Mega Linguistic Area. This is due to the fact that these two languages are located between these two Mega Linguistic Areas. In addition to surface properties, we should examine deep factors which influence and give shape to surface properties. Dominance and harmony proposed by Greenberg are good examples of such deep factors.

일본어와 한국어는 주격-대격 정렬을 보이면서도 주격이 유표지인 특이한 모습을 보인다. 일본어의 경우 본래 속격이었던 '-ga'가 주격으로 재분석된 것으로 알려져 있다. 이와 비슷한 추론을 한국어에 대해서도 할 수 있다. '-이'가 속격으로 사용된 예가 소수이지만 발견되는데, '-이'가 본래 속격이었다가 주어적 속격 구문을 교량문맥으로 하여 주격으로 재분석되었을 가능성이 있다. 신라어, 고려어에서 동명사 어미로 끝나는 절이 관형절, 명사절뿐 아니라 주절, 접속절에도 폭넓게 사용되었으므 로, 주어적 속격이 광범위하게 사용되었을 가능성이 높고, 이것이 주격으로 재분석되 었을 것으로 추정된다.

Japanese and Korean are untypical in that the nominative case is not zero in spite that their case alignments are of nominative-accusative type. It is well-known that the nominative marker in Japanese arose from the former genitive marker. The same scenario can be applied to Korean also. We can see a few examples in which '-i' is used as a genitive marker in Middle Korean. This suggests the possibility that '-i' which was originally a gentivie marker, was reanalysed as a nominative marker through the brige context of gentivie subject constructions. In ancient Korean, the verbal noun endings were used as the marker of adnominal and nominal clauses as well as subordinate and even main clauses, and in these constructions, which were in essence nominalized clauses, the subject could be marked with a genitive case. I suspect that this genitive was reanalysed as nominative.

The terms ‘theme’ and ‘topic’ in information structure have been used without conceptual distinction. So there was conceptual confusion in many discussions. This paper suggests that it is necessary to analyze how the topic-comment structure introduced by Lambrecht(1994) is related to the theme-rheme structure discussed in Halliday(1967) in Korean sentences. Based on the fact that the most important property of the theme is sentence-initial and that of the topic is aboutness, it is pointed out that the sentence-initial constituent of a sentence is the theme and the topic is an active element about which new information is added to the listener. A preposed object with clitic -(n)un in the sentence-initial is analysed as not a topic but a contrastive focus in Korean. And the sentence-initial that represents the possessor and possession marked with -(n)un is not only a topic as a whole but also its possessor could be a topic.

Korean is an synthetic-agglutinative language, and Chinese is an isolated language, they belong to different language families. As a result, each grammatical phenomenon has different expressions, but research has been conducted based on the correspondence relationship based on the characteristics of grammar itself, and students have been guided according to the results. However, it is difficult to reduce blind spots in learning that are difficult to explain only with comparative studies on the same grammatical markers because the linguistic environment for each language is different and the meaning expressed by the same grammatical phenomenon is different. Therefore, based on the bei(被)-sentence most frequently used in Chinese passive sentences, Korean response types were classified and the characteristics of each type were analyzed. The phenomenon was confirmed, and it will be possible to suggest a way to reduce the errors that learners who learn Korean and Chinese as foreign languages can easily make in the process of learning passive sentences in the future.

One used grammar in Vietnamese becomes two in Korean so learners are very confused. A study on the bias caused by the difference between Vietnamese and Korean. A study on the bias analysis caused by the differences between Vietnamese and Korean. I think this is a necessary study for Vietnamese learners of Korean language. The purpose of this research is to find the similarities and differences between Korean sentences -ko iss-, -e iss- and Vietnamese đang sentences. Then let Vietnamese learners learn to progressiv and resultative -ko iss-, -e iss- sentence learning is easier and more convenient. This way, the teachers who can teach them also have a little help.

This paper is to carry out a contrastive analysis of the characteristics that appear when a variety of vocabulary is combined with the progressive aspect in Korean and Spanish according to the Korean lexical aspect. -Ko iss- shows different aspectual characteristics depending on the lexical aspect. In addition, -ko iss- has not only a progressive phase, but also other characteristics such as a resultative, a quasi-resultative, and iterative. Estar + gerundio also has not only the meaning of a progressive but also the meaning of the repetition, the continuation, and the future depending on the lexical aspect. For example, the verb ‘conocer’ has an inceptive property when combined with estar + gerundio(Villorio, 1989). In this paper, after comparing and analyzing the Korean -ko iss- and the Spanish estar + gerundio, parallel texts of the Spanish drama scripts and the Korean drama scripts were cross-analyzed to see how they are truthfully used and what the differences and the similarities are.

This paper aims to make several suggestions. First, linguistic typology should be based on the correctly described data of the individual languages. Second, Korean linguistics also should be objectively described in terms of distribution so that it can contribute to the typology of languages of the world. We reexamined the so-called double subject constructions in order to check the justification of applying the concept 'non-nominative subject' to Korean. We concluded that the 'dative subject' is not true subject of the so-called double subject constructions, but just oblique constituent. The true subject of the so-called double subject constructions is realize in the form of 'NP1-eun/neun' or 'NP1-i/ga'. And we proved that the second constituent 'NP2-i/ga' in those constructions could be analyzed object complement, revealing the misconcept of 'predicate clause'.

The purpose of this study is to examine the concept and the universal of the middle voice and find the similarities and differences between the middle voice in Korean and the middle voice in French. The definition of ‘voice’ in this study is “the category indicating the flow of the force the agent has and the direction of that force.” In ancient Indo-Euroupean, there were two voices, active one and middle one, and as times went on, the middle voice has been developed into the passive voice, resulting in three voices as they are. As a cross-linguistic phenomenon, the middle voice is one in which the subject is not an agent but a patient without any passive marker or even if it is an agent, it is a patient at the same time. That is, the action the subject does goes back to the subject again. There are three voices, active, middle and passive voice both in Korean and French. All these three voices are defined depending on if there is “force” and if it is, where it comes from and where it is directed. There are four subcategories in Korean and three subcategories in French. The middle marker in Korean is sometimes the same as the passive marker, which bring about some confusion. In French, although ‘se’, the middle marker seems not to bring about the confusion between voices, it has so many functions that it also does. As a result, it is safe to say that there is any independent middle voice marker in both languages. In addition to that, as the passive and middle are related, one can mistake one for the other. For resolving this problem, there are some ways to distinguish the two. One of them is to add ‘Agent-adjuct’. Agent-adjunct cannot be in the middle voice sentences. Other one is to examine the aspects of two voices. The middle voice tends to have duration or repetition while the passive voice tends to have resultative or perfective.

With the increase in the English literacy of Koreans, more and more Koreans have become sensitive to unnatural Korean sentences in translation that mimic the linguistic features of English. This increased sensitivity has activated research on so-called translationese, "awkwardness or ungrammaticality of translation". However, most of the research until now has been constrained to translation whereas interpreting, the oral translation activity, has not been in the limelight. Therefore, this study aims to identify reasons for unnatural sentences generated in English-Korean consecutive interpreting and propose corresponding interpreting strategies to make the interpreting output sound more natural to Koreans. The reasons for translationese would vary, but this study will take the linguistic typological view to construe the phenomenon, especially focusing on the verb orientation of Korean and the noun orientation of English.

This paper is a contrastive study on SHARP adjectives in Korean and Chinese from the perspective of lexical typology. The research method follows the approach of Moscow Lexical typology, and the analysis data are collected from dictionary description, corpus use, and consultation result according to native speakers. The research results are as follows. In terms of basic meaning, similar lexical strategies were found in the two languages. In terms of derivative meaning, Chinese is distinguished from Korean in that derivation meaning related to SHARP is divided into several independent words. However, SHARP lexical in Korean cover a wider semantic range than in Chinese.