한·터 증거성 표현 대조 연구

Abstract

This paper analyzises the expression of evidence in both Korean and Turkish languages from a contrasting point of view, and puts forward the implications that Turkish learners of Korean language have suggested Korean language learning. In this paper, evidence markers in Korean were classified as direct and indirect evidence, and the direct evidence markers were analyzed ‘te, -ney and killay’ as direct evidential markers and  for information obtained through inference ‘-keyss-, -ul kesi-, -na/unka po-’ and ‘–ul/un moyangi-’, and for information obtained through hearsay ‘–ta(ko ha)’. The Korean evidence system is divided into the method who obtained the information and the method by which the information was obtained. First of all, strictly distinguishes between speaker has obtained the information and those who have heard it from someone else. In addition, the forms of expressing information are well developed by dividing it into those directly perceived to obtain information and those obtained through inference. On the other hand, ‘-mIş-’ the past tense, is the only Turkish ending. In Turkish, ‘-mIş-’ not only represents the meaning of the past, but it can also represent modalities and evidence. The main view about the‘-mIş-’ that speaker's belief in the content of the proposition can express directly or indirectly. The similarity between the meaning and function of the Korean language's endings, the Turkish learner has difficulty understanding and distinguishing the meaning and use of them.