한국 출판 중국어 회화교재의 문장 성분 생략 현상 연구― 주어, 빈어, 서술어 생략을 중심으로

Abstract

The present study examined the phenomenon of omitting the subject, object, and predicate in the conversational Chinese textbooks that are published in Korea, and Korean translations of the omitted Chinese elements, to explore the characteristics of omission in Chinese and Korean to enhance awareness of the omission phenomenon in education. The main contents of the present paper are as follows. First, the present paper analyzed the omission phenomenon of major sentence elements that appear in five different textbooks that are published in Korea. The ratios of omissions were: subject the highest, followed by object, and the ratio of predicate the lowest. The results of two textbooks that are published in China showed that the omission ratio was in the order of subject > object > predicate, as was the order in the textbooks published in Korea. However, the overall ratio of omission in the textbooks published in China was significantly higher than in the textbooks published in Korea. Second, the present study found that the translated sentences in Korean of the Chinese sentences in which the subject and/or the object was omitted also omitted the equivalent subject and/or object through the analysis of the Korean text of the sentences with omitted subject, object, and predicate. However, in the case of predicate, the ratio of omission and the ratio of non-omission were 75% and 25% respectively. This finding correlates to the function of predicates in Korean which reveal honorific mood, tense, and sentence ending, and they cannot be omitted when they qualify as old information. Third, the omission ratio of the subject, object, and predicate in Chinese and the omission ratio of the subject, object, and predicate in Korean from the studied textbooks, the present study verified the overall differences in the omission phenomenon between the two languages. In the case of the subject, it was more frequently omitted in Korean compared to Chinese. In Korean, the subject was omitted at about 50%, where as in Chinese, the subject was omitted at about 30%. As for the object, it was omitted in both Chinese and Korean at similar rates, around 12%-15%. As for the predicate, the omission ratio was extremely low for both Chinese and Korean, but it was omitted more frequently in Chinese compared to Korean. Fourth, the textbooks published in Korea do not mention the omission phenomenon. The present paper examines the omission phenomenon of textbooks and mentions the importance of omission in education. It provides basic data for omission phenomenon on Chinese education and research.