【作者】 黄丙刚；

【导师】 李敏德；

【作者基本信息】 延边大学 ， 亚非语言文学， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 本文以汉族人学习韩国语的角度，在共时性研究方法下，从韩汉语本体论角度对韩汉语主从复句的分类以及各个类型的特点进行了综合性的考察和归纳；并且运用对比语言学、语用学、统计学的研究方法，着实对韩国语和汉语的因果关系、条件关系、让步关系等三种主从复句相互间的对应现象，进行了系统的考察、分析和对比。通过实际翻译语料对比分析可得知，韩国语的“（？）”因果关系复句在汉语中大多用“因为－一所以－一”因果复句来表现，相反，汉语的“因为一一所以一”因果复句用韩国语来表现时，使用惯用型“（？）”因果复句形式和“（？）”等单句形式，远远大于使用由连接语尾“（？）”构成的复句形式。另外，和汉语“既然一就一”因果复句对应的前四位是“（？）（30.8%)”、“（？）（25.6%)”、“（？））(7.7%)”、，“（？）(5.1%)”；“以致”因果复句在原文中共出现11次，译文中除了省略4次，和“（？）”因果复句对应的只有2次，其他和“（？）”等形式对应。韩国语的“（？）”条件复句都可用汉语的条件复句和假设复句来表现，“（？）”条件复句可用汉语的条件复句和让步复句来表现，但实际翻译语料中，“（？），”条件复句和汉语假设复句的对应频率却高于和条件复句或其他关系复句的对应频率，“（？）”条件复句和“只有一一才一一”必要条件复句的对应频率高于和无条件复句、让步关系复句的对应频率。反之，汉语的充分条件复句和韩国语的“（？）”条件复句对应；必要条件复句和“（？）”条件复句对应；比起和韩国语的条件复句的对应，汉语的无条件复句和韩国语的让步关系复句、选择关系复句有着更好的对应关系；汉语的假设复句主要和韩国语的条件复句对应，有些也可以和让步关系对应。韩国语的让步关系复句普遍都能和汉语的让步关系复句对应，有些情况和汉语的条件、假设、转折等关系复句也能很好地对应，比如“（？）”让步关系复句和汉语转折关系复句的对应频率就很高。反之，汉语的“即使一也”让步关系标记和“就是／就算／哪怕—也”让步关系标记和韩国语的让步关系标记对应，但是这两种关系标记和韩国语助词的对应频率却很高,分别是31%和22.7%；汉语的“尽管---也(还)”和韩国语对立关系标记的对应频率远远高于和让步关系标记的对应频率。总之,韩国语和汉语中都有主从复句这一语法范畴,但它们的判定标准各有不同又各具特色,本文运用多种研究方法,来考察韩语和汉语相互间的表达方式,进一步揭示它们在复句结构认定上的差异。希望本文的研究能够在一定程度上丰富韩汉语复句研究的理论,在韩国语和对外汉语的教学及研究上起到一定的指导作用,在韩汉语互译实践上特别是机器翻译上提供一些帮助。更多还原

【Abstract】 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.更多还原