A Contrastive Research On The Main And Subordinate Compound Sentences Between Korean And Chinese

Through synchronic study, this paper makesserious and detailed comparative analysisof the said compound sentences with the methodologies of contrastive linguistics,contrastive analytics and comparison between Korean and Chinese; moreover, makessystematic exploration, analysis and comparison by virtue of theoretical knowledge oftranslatology and statistics upon the correspondence among the three Korean and Chinesesubordinative compound sentences of cause-effect, conditional and concessive relations.As indicated by the comparative analysis of practical translation corpus, the "(?) or (?)"Korean cause-effect compound sentence is mostly translated into Chineseas "因为---所以---’, while when the latter is translated into Korean, it is commonlytranslated as--)I EN "" cause-effect compound sentence and "(?)or "simple sentences more frequently than the compound sentencecomposed of such subordinating conjunctions as "(?)".Moreover, the top four corresponding to the "因为---所以---" cause-effect Chinesecompound sentence are:"(?)(0.8%)","(?)(7.7%)" and(?)(5.1%)"; there are totally "以致" cause-effect compound sentences in theoriginal text, among the translated versions,4are ellipsis, only2correspond to the "0[(?)" cause-effect compound sentence, and the rest correspond to the forms of "(?)".Both the "(?)" Korean conditional compound sentences can be translated intoChinese hypothetical and conditional compound sentences, while the "010k" conditionalcompound sentences can be translated into Chinese conditional and concessive compoundsentences. But in practical translation corpus, the corresponding. frequency between the"(?)"conditional compound sentence and Chinese hypothetical compound sentenceis higher than that between it and the conditional or other relation compound sentences,and the corresponding frequency between the "010k" conditional compound sentence and"只有--才--" necessary-condition compound sentence is higher than that between it andthe non-conditional or concessive compound sentence. On the contrary, the Chinese sufficient-condition compound sentence corresponds to the "(?)" Korean conditional compound sentence; necessary-condition compound sentence corresponds to "(?)" conditional compound sentence; the correspondence between the Chinese non-conditional compound sentence and the Korean concessive and selective compound sentences is better than that between it and the Korean conditional compound sentence; The Chinese hypothetical compound sentences mainly correspond to the Korean conditional compound sentences, some to the concessive ones.The majority of Korean concessive compound sentences can correspond to the Chinese counterparts, and can satisfactorily correspond to the Chinese conditional, hypothetical and adversative compound sentences in certain cases, e.g.,"(?)" concessive component sentence has a high corresponding frequency with the Chinese adversative compound sentence. On the contrary, the Chinese concessive marks of“即使---也”and“就是／就算／哪怕---也”corresponds to the Korean concessive marks, but have a high corresponding frequency with the Korean auxiliary words, being31%and22.7%respectively; the corresponding frequency between the Chinese "尽管---也(还)”and the Korean counterpart is much higher than that between it and the concessive mark.In conclusion, though the grammatical category of subordinative compound sentence is an integral part of both Korean and Chinese, their identifying criteria differs and is distinctive. Our objective is to study the corresponding expressions between Korean and Chinese through the comparative study, so as to further unveil their differences in identifying the compound sentence structures. Hopefully that this study can to a certain extent enrich the theories of study on Korean and Chinese compound sentences, offer certain instructions to the teaching and study of Korean and Chinese for foreigners, and facilitate the Korean-Chinese and Chinese-Korean translations and especially the machine translation.