한국어와 러시아어의 피동문 연구 - 전형적 피동문과 비전형적 피동문의 논의를 중심으로 -

Abstract

This study examines the similarities and differences in the realization patterns of passive constructions in Korean and Russian. The common features of typical passive constructions in both languages include the existence of corresponding active sentences, the elevation of the patient to the subject position, and the demotion or omission of the agent, resulting in defocusing. However, while both languages have morphological markers for passives, Russian forms passives using affixes or passive participle past forms based on perfective or imperfective aspect, whereas Korean's passive affixes are less predictable and less productive. Russian passives are more systematically formed according to aspect and tense, with productive passive participle past forms in the perfective aspect. In terms of non-typical passive constructions (middle voice), both languages elevate the patient argument to the subject position and use passive morphological markers, making them morphosyntactically identical to passive constructions. The presence of optional demoted agents distinguishes passive sentences from middle voice constructions, which can be interpreted differently depending on context. Additionally, both languages express spontaneity, general properties, genericity, and modal possibility through middle voice. The differences arise as Korean expresses natural phenomena and spontaneity through middle voice, while Russian may utilize impersonal or indefinite-personal constructions. Korean can form middle voice using ambitransitive verbs without morphological changes or derived passive verbs from intransitive verbs. In contrast, Russian middle voice typically appears in imperfective present tense due to its association with repetitive and general events. Impersonal and indefinite-personal constructions in Russian express genericity but are not considered middle voice morphosyntactically. This study confirms linguistic universality through common features and linguistic individuality through differences in realization patterns; however, it is limited by a lack of diverse examples. Future research should focus on analyzing various examples applicable to foreign language education, with the hope that these findings will benefit Korean and Russian language education.