A Comparative Study On Korean Modal Suffixes And The Corresponding Chinese Modal Verbs

This dissertation has discussed Korean modal suffix(KMS)and Chinese modal verb(CMV).The two have many similarities,but do not necessarily have one-to-one correspondence.Due to the fact that modality is expressed differently in Chinese from that in Korean,Korean learners often find that CMV is the difficulty where they often make errors when learning Chinese.Based on previous studies,this dissertation has first analysed the features of syntax,semantics and pragmatics of KMS and corresponding CMV What's more,comparative analysis between KMS and CMV has also been made,and similarities and differences between the two have been generalised.Comparative analysis is helpful to Korean Chinese learners not only at understanding the semantics of CMV,but also at flexibly utilizing CMV.This dissertation consists of six chapters.Chapter One is introduction,presenting the importance of research hypothesis,the objective and benefits of this study,the research scope,the data sources etc.Chapter Two is the basis of the comparative analysis of KMSes and CMVs.Seven Korean modal suffixes will be discussed:-l-su iss-,-l geos-i-,-l geos gat-,-l jul-al-,-do doen-,-ya ha-/doe-and-go sip-.And the nine selected CMVs are neng,ke-neng,hui,ying-gai,ke-yi,yao&dei,and xiang&yuan-yi.Chapter Three introduces the relevant basic knowledge about common KMSes and the corresponding CMVs.According to the findings,the Korean-l su iss-and the Chinese neng share a lot of similarities in meaning.For example,both express possibility,ability and permission.Chapter Four analyses the similarities and differences of Korean and Chinese epistemic modal expressions in terms of core meaning,syntax and pragmatics.According to the findings,Korean epistemic modal suffixes include-l-su iss-,which expresses[possibility](KMSpo);-l geos-i-and-l geos-gat-,which express[probability](KMSpr);and-l geos gat-,which expresses[necessity](KMSn).The corresponding CMVs are neng&ke-neng that encode[possibility](CMVpo),ying-gai&hui that encode[probability](CMVpr),and ying-gai(only when it corresponds KMSn)&yao that encode[necessity](CMVn).The modality expressions of the two languages can correspond semantically,but the actual correspondence could vary depending on other sentence constituents,such as person of subject,combination with other constituents,negative form,word order when combining other modal expressions etc.As for syntax,the Korean and their corresponds have the similarities and differences.In terms of pragmatics,both KMSpo and CMVpo can be used as euphemismor show politeness in daily conversations.Secondly,it comes to the analysis of KMSpr and CMVpr.Semantically,Korean-l geos-i-and-l geos gat-both indicate[probability].-l geos-i-is mostly used for subjective predictions while-l geos gat-is for predictions based on objective facts.Therefore-l geos-i-corresponds to Chinese hui,while-l geos gat-corresponds to ying-gai.Noticeably that hui mostly indicates the probability of things that happen in future,but the usage of-l geos-i-is not restricted accordingly.KMSpr and CMVpr have the similarities and differences syntactically.In terms of pragmatics,both Korean-l geos-i-&-l geos gat-,and their Chinese counterparts hui&ying-gai can be used as euphemism in daily conversations.Last,KMSn and CMVn will be listed.Semantically,Korean-l geos-i-is used for predictions of high possibility,and can correspond to yao or ying-gai in Chinese.Ying-gai is mostly interpreted as CMVpr,but comparatively,it corresponds to KMSc-1 geos-i-semantically.KMSn-l geos-i-and CMV yao share the same pragmatic property,which is sentences containing either of the two show a sense of impoliteness.Chapter Five analyses the similarities and differences of Korean and Chinese non-epistemic modal expressions in terms of core meaning,syntax and pragmatics.Both Korean-l su iss-and the Chinese counterpart neng can express[permission]and[ability].KMS-l jul al-,which indicates 'acquired ability',is used in the same way with CMV hui both syntactically and semantically.For KMSes that show[intension]like-go sip-,-go sip-eo-ha-,and-l geos-i-,the corresponding Chinese modal verbs are xiang&yuan-yi&yao.In terms of[obligation],the Korean suffix is-ya ha-/doe-,corresponding to CMVs yao,dei and ying-gai.In a word,the modal expressions in the two languages can form one-to-one correspondence,but only at times.This is because the two modal expressions not only share common features,but also have their own uniqueness.Chapter Six is Conclusion,stating the analysis results and study purposes.Additionally,it proposes the limitation of this study.