한국어 [얼굴]과 중국어 [臉]의 의미 확장 비교 연구 -양어의 대응 표현을 중심으로-

Abstract

As a category of basic vocabulary, body lexeme is provided with strong characteristics of extended meaning. As a result, there can be several polysemy expansion derived from the basic meaning. The paper will do some comparative analysis on polysemous words of “얼굴” and “脸”, in order to distinguish their correspondence and disparate in the field of semantic extension. By the analysis, we can confirm that the characteristics of polysemy expansion of the two languages are made up by factors of motivation. The primary meaning of “얼굴” in Korean language is self-respect, and the secondary meanings are appearance, expression, face, judge,reputation, represent, central part and soon. We can find that the factors of motivation, such as the similarity of main body and function, contiguity of main body and attribute, approach in spatial position and the similar of parts and whole, play an important part in the process of secondary meaning expansion. It can also be named as trope according with the regulation of metaphor and metonymy. Then we can see the word “脸” in Chinese language means face in primary meaning, and expression,appearance, dignity, front in secondary meaning. Compared with “얼굴”, the secondary meaning of “脸” is slightly simple because there are no meanings like judge, reputation, represent orcentral part, so the vacant positions filled with map, person, symbol. As there are common ground in 4 meanings of “얼굴” and 3 meanings of “脸”,they can be taken shape in correspondence. The secondary meaning of front in “脸” can not be found in “얼굴”, so that can be considered as their disparate. Furthermore, the surrounding space meaning of front can not be showed in Korean language,it also reflects the similarity of above and forward in the body. In conclusion, by the comparative analysis on the meaning of “얼굴”and “臉”, we can find that the correspondence or disparate comes from the homogeneity of cross-culture and the heterogeneity of language environment. From this we can find out there are community in cognitive habits and fields at all times and all over the world. It also shows that secondary meanings of the two countries are influenced by differences in language environment in history, custom, tradition, modes of thought and experience.