現代漢語“連...都/也”結構與其對應的韓語表達對照研究

Abstract

This study examines the Chinese construction lián连...dōu都/yě也 and its Korean equivalents from a typological viewpoint, analysing the formal distinctions and functional disparities and similarities between the two languages in multiple settings. The study begins by specifying the definitional criteria and classification systems of focus in Chinese and Korean, and then explains the syntactic and semantic properties of focus markers and focus-sensitive operators within the lián连...dōu都/yě也 construction. The Korean component concentrates on classifying focus-related particles such as un은/nun는, to도, kkaci까지, cocha조차, and mace마저, based on their characteristics, excluding those which do not relate to the lián连...dōu都/yě也 construction. The study expands on this by examining the usage patterns and practical applications of these particles in various contexts through a database of Chinese-Korean translations from modern and contemporary Chinese writing. The study discovers that although un은/nun는 has a certain contrastive connotation, this contrastive meaning is frequently substantially diminished when corresponding to the lián连...dōu都/yě也 construction, and it tends to serve as a topic marker essential for constructing a complete sentence. The additive particle to도 has the broadest semantic coverage among the three, covering various contexts where the lián连...yě也 construction is used. kkaci까지 is more suitable for expressing the extremity of the lián连...dōu都 construction due to its inclusion and range extension features. cocha조차 is often used in unexpected or counter-intuitive contexts, conveying a strong counter-expectational nuance and a focus-enhancing function, similar to the lián连...dōu都 construction. mace마저 is generally neutral in meaning and commonly used in contexts that build on a prior assumption, which makes it more similar in meaning to lián连...yě也 construction. Statistical analysis also reveals a representative tendency in Korean expression: the structure “hanpen한번/hana하나 + no particle + negation (or rhetorical question)” can convey the meaning of “not even the most basic condition was fulfilled” indirectly, paralleling the semantic effect of lián连...dōu都/yě也 construction. This study not only highlights the systematic disparities between Chinese and Korean focus expression mechanisms in terms of syntactic structure and pragmatic function, but also outlines a research methodology that combines semantic, categorisation, pragmatic analysis, and parallel corpus comparison. This approach provides a fresh theoretical viewpoint and methodological framework for cross-linguistic studies of focus expression, translation practice, and Chinese-Korean language instruction, highlighting both theoretical importance and practical utility.