CC BY
12
Y/iK 811.531
doi: 10.18101/1994-0866-2017-6-24-30
EXPRESSION OF CONCESSIVE RELATIONS
IN THE KOREAN LANGUAGE
© Darima S. Tsydenova
Cand. Sci. (Philol.), A/Prof.,
Buryat State University
4 Ranzhurova St., Ulan-Ude 670000, Russia
E-mail: darimasan@yandex.ru
Concessive relations in the Korean language can be expressed by many conjunctive affixes. Some of them may have not only concessive but also contrastive meaning. The difference between opposition and concession lies in the following fact — opposition implies that the speaker adopts the dependent predicative unit as an actual fact already exists in reality or fact in future recognized as actual. If the dependent predicative unit is irrespective to the reality of fact and suppose any action or statement, the concessive meaning is expressed here. Affixes can replace each other when real fact is expressed by the dependent predicative unit. If the dependent predicative unit contain a supposed or impossible action, the use of conjunctive affix ^ and makes the sentence erroneous. Compound forms -(A)s^-^ and -(A)ex] also express concessive meaning, when the speaker chooses a dependent action. The speaker, however, makes the choice basing not on sympathy but basing on the lack of desire to choose the major predicative unit. Sometimes, these concessive affixes are used in the contrastive meaning. In such sentences, the content of the dependent predicative unit is a real fact, and the affixes express opposition. Thus, we see that modality plays a significant role in the determination of the meaning of conjunctive affix. Depending on the speakers' recognition of the content marked by conjunctive affix as real or unreal different meanings are expressed.
Keywords: concessive relations; the Korean language; conjunctive affixes; modality, speakers' recognition; opposition.
The concession is one kind of logic relations which in the Korean language can be expressed by means of a lot of conjunctive affixes: -(^e^l^, -CMS, A. A. Kholodovich
proposes to distinguish two types of concessive relations: real-concessive and conditional-concessive [6, p. 173]. In the first case we mean real-existing state of affairs, prospective state of affairs and an impossible state of affairs are belonging to the second type. In case of real-concessive relations speaker recognizes the maintenance of preceding predicative unit as the real fact already existing actually, or the fact which is carried out at the moment, or the fact in the future, perceived as real (stated in advance like event in real world). So we can say that speaker has faith in possibilities of realization about events. In a preceding unit conditional-concessive relations assume realization of prospective action (potentially possible, but only hypothetically) or impossible action. In other words, speaker thinks the events have no possibilities of realization.
In conditional-concessive meaning concessive conjunctive affixes are similar with conditional as the condition is also expressed there, both prospective and impossible. «The difference between conditional conjunctive affixes from concessive is that conditional conjunctive affixes specify on conditions that are promoting the fulfillment of another action, and the concessive affixes specify on conditions not promoting them» [6, p. 173]. In other words, if the maintenance of the main predicative unit in conditional sentences realizes proceeding from the stated condition, in concessive sentences — despite of the prospective condition:
(1) a. S^HtII ^ ^ 7}e}.
If you will be bitten by a tiger, immediately address to the hospital.
(1) b. <H1 Til 7>^5KE 3 a] o. ô] ^
Even if you will be bitten by a tiger, do not lose mind.
(1) C. Z17\ qj^ -g-Aj
If he will ask a pardon first, I shall forgive him.
(1) d. Z17\ ^ èfl ^ ^ èfl
Even if he will ask a pardon first, I can not forgive him.
Besides, the supposition about any state of affairs comes out in conditional and concessive kinds of relations. However conditional affixes express closed supposition whereas concessive affixes express open supposition [7, p. 120]. The closed supposition is that the surface meaning in preceding unit is supposed. And the open supposition is that both of the surface meaning and implicational meaning in preceding unit are supposed. For example:
(2) a. é K] 4.1 shall go, ifCholsoo comes.
(2) b. 11^7} foS. ^ 1 shall go, even ifCholsoo comes.
As the condition of departure of the speaker in the example 2a expressed only one condition «if Cholsoo comes», and in the example 2b there are two conditions: «if Cholsoo comes» and «if Cholsoo does not come».
Korean researcher Seo Jeong Soo suggests subdividing conditional-concessive type of relations in two groups regarding the possibility or impossibility of the state of affairs. So propositions of concession in the Korean language can be classified into three groups depending on the degree of reality of their maintenance: 1) the propositions expressing real state of affairs; 2) propositions with potentially possible prospective state of affairs; 3) the propositions expressing impossible, but prospective state of affairs [5, p. 1264]:
(3) a. ^ 7} ô] % Til q-ir «à wl-mM ^
Though weather is good today, I can not go anywhere because of urgent affairs.
(3)b. ^17} ûj-Jfe] wl-mM ^
Though weather will be good tomorrow, I can not go anywhere because of urgent affairs.
(3) c. ^^ ^eJ-S. ife OJo] «H]
Even if the sun will ascend in the West, I can not go anywhere because of urgent affairs.
As we see, characteristic feature of concessive constructions is the effect of
accentuation of the maintenance of main predicative unit, especially by representation in the proposition of impossible or prospective state of affairs (lb, lc). In the meaning of real-concessive relation concessive conjunctive affixes are close to adversative affixes (la). Let's compare affix in the meaning of real-
concessive relation with adversative affixes -(J=L)"l4 and -Z1
(4) a. iL^H^ $ O] / / y^pj;) ^Iie^H
Though the family ofPoram is poor, she does not ashamed of it.
(4) b. * iL^H^ tLjiE^^l i ^ / ^ö]
* Though Poram is not ashamed, her family is poor.
From the example (4a) it is visible, that in the meaning of real concession affixes are interchangeable with each other, but rearrangement of units of the sentence without change of its meaning is impossible (4b) because the sentence is constructed by the principle of submission instead of compositions.
Affix also can express actually-adversative meaning in which rear-
rangement of parts of the sentence does not cause changes of the sentence, but causes only shift of accent:
(5) a. iL^H ^ ^ ^ № / / 7}
Poram has a pretty face, but her soul is evil.
(5)b. // P>) gj g-£ iSic}.
Poram's soul is evil, but her face is pretty.
(6) a. ^^ i-f^ / / a^M) ^^
(He) said to them aloud pleasant words, but despised them in the heart (inwardly.)
(6) b. ^IM- AI / ^A] / T^X] gV) ^^
He despised them in the heart, but loudly said (them) pleasant words. In the above sentences affixes express adversative meaning: an opposite estimation (5a, 5b), counteractions-restrictions (6a, 6b). Thus the predicate of the preceding unit is arranged by the suffix of past time -£i> to show that action has already occurred.
One of the adversative affixes ^ in some cases can to express concessive meaning (discrepancy to expectations):
(7) a. ZL^
Though he helps others much, he does not show himself off. (7) b. *l-7l t- ^ ^ö] ^tf.
Though he does not show himself off, he helps others much.
In this case replacing of the proposition and main predicative unit of the sentence does not involve a change of the whole sentence, but the affix does not simply oppose two states of affairs as in case with adversative affixes, but also emphasizes the property of the main predicative unit.
We can show concessive meaning of the given affix by means of the following example where the meaning of abnormal consequence is expressed: It0]-*]1?]: 7j- £}-JtL. Winter, but it is raining. The given sentence can be developed as «Winter. It is raining. It was expected, that if it was winter, it had to be snowing». However affix in concessive meaning is used seldom enough,
and can not be refered to the conjunctive affixes of concession [5, p. 1265].
All concessive affixes of the Korean language can express the above mentioned meanings of real and conditional concession. We will take one of the most common concessive affixes of the Korean language
(8) a. ¿L^H^r
Though the family ofPoram is poor, she does not ashamed of it.
I shall go even if it will be raining.
(8) c. «flZt H^r ^^ ¿W^l SM- ^ °1 cf.
Even ifthe sun will rise in the West, he would not apologize first.
Affix as well as other concessive affixes, is related to the type of vari-ative-subject conjunctive affixes, thus the subject of action is usually modified by the particle of nominative case -7}/-°] (8b, 8c). However in the meaning of real concession the subject can be emphasized by the particle -Tr/--cr (8a).
Given concessive affixes are able to attach to all kinds of predicatives, thus the final predicate also can be expressed by all kinds of predicatives and has no restrictions in modifying. The given position is characteristic for all concessive conjunctive affixes. Expressing prospective or impossible action, affix is
not combined with the suffix of past time because it means that the action is unreal or hasn't passed yet. Otherwise the affix gets real-concessive meaning. Besides the given affix can't be combined with the suffix of future time because the meaning of the prospective condition belongs to the aspect of future time and when it's used it causes imposing of times. Concerning the affix we can say about the concept of hypothetical modality because in the sentences with the given affix not only supposition is expressed, but specified hidden supposition as well (2a, 2b).
One of the concessive affixes -"P] ¿KSE. supposes not only the stated condition, but also any other conditions arising from the latent maintenance the speaker wants to express speaker using this affix. In comparison with affix it has a
greater degree of hypothesis and expresses, a weak opportunity of realization of the supposed assumption. For example: (9) a. ^17} H "t'H- Sfic. -cT^i ^Kvi1-}. I shall forgive him, even if he has mistaken (Speaker is assured that the subject of action does not made a mistake).
In the meaning of real concession affix always attaches to the stem
of the predicative in past time because speaker perceives the given state of affairs as real. Thus affix is usually used for expression of prospective or im-
possible state of affairs. It has restrictions in modifying the final predicate: usually final predicate is expressed by the forms belonging to the aspect of future time (intention, supposition, obligation, imperatively-desirable forms), therefore cannot be attached to the stem of the predicative complicated by aspect-time suffix of
27
past time. This moment distinguishes it from the affix which combines with final predicate in any time and in any mood. Let's compare:
(10) a. ^¿KE (tc] / n] 140]: / * rej / * k]
Will leave / it is necessary to leave, even if it will be snowing. * Leaves / * has left, in spite of the fact that it is snowing.
(10) b. (tf] q-^t} / n] 140]: / rej / k]
Will leave / it is necessary to leave, even if it will be snowing. Leaves / has left, in spite of the fact that it is snowing.
Thus, we can draw a conclusion that the given affix possesses a strongly clarified hypothetical modality. Unlike the affix which has two plans:
«even if there will be snowing» / «even if the snow will not be» affix has
additional explicit meaning «possibly, that it will be not snowing».
Concessive relations can be expressed by means of analytical forms -(i-L) g ffi^j / -(i-L)g^l Sd^j). Thus the action indicated by them is the real fact or is perceived by speaker as the real fact. And if it is necessary to choose one of two specified actions or conditions, speaker would prefer the maintenance of the proposition, thus the choice is caused by unwillingness of the choice of the maintenance of main predicative unit. Very often in this meaning the affixes are accompanied by modal words such as «although»:
(11) a. 7} ^ /
Though I 'm poor, I shall not live meanly.
(11)b. %•<>] M-^t-
I prefer to die, but I shall not sell the country.
Given affixes of concession are inherent of intentional modality in this connection; final predicate is usually expressed by forms of future time. Besides in the meaning of real concession the subject of the proposition is modified by affixes of the nominative case. In that case when there are two subjects in the sentence, opposed to each other, they are modified by the particles -Tr/-xr: (HgSkS. / ^^lqj^l) ^Ji 7}SL. Though I'm leaving, I leave my
soul here.
As for the combination with aspect-time affixes, affixes -(.£.) /
-(-£.) can express the meaning of the real concession to action in the past,
hence, can be attached to the stem of the predicates issued by the affix of past time. oqa-i-qra / ^a-jr^lqi^h °H ^ 1 ^ S^l? She has
left her husband, but will she dare to leave children?
Given affixes as well as the following affix -(—) s x] are not combined with suffixes of future time, because in their structure there already is an element
This affix expresses compulsion of realization of the action in the main part of the sentence, despite of the prospective state of affairs specified in a proposition, for example:
(12) ^^SfcE %JL ^cjot
Even though the heart is heavy, it is necessary to endure and bear.
28
(12) b. ^ §1]
Even if I'm cursed, it is necessary to tell what I wanted.
(12) c. g)-S °1
Even if he horns again, he will be engaged in this business.
Debitive modality (a modality of obligation) is typical of the affix therefore it is combined only with such final predicates which express obligation or obligatory realization of action in the future. As well as the majority of concessive affixes it can be combined with affixes of past time, expressing the assumption of action in the past: 7} ^-^-ir ^ Sglir^l ^-tt -cr^l H" u^Ai1^. Even fyou beg for pardon, I would not be able to forgive.
The feature of a concessive affix -(.£-) T-il: is that it expresses irrespectivity of action of main predicative unit to the maintenance of a proposition. Thus final predicate always contains denying or a rhetorical question.
(13)
Though he has left you, but has he left for ever?
(13)b. ^ l-^^l- S^ll- ## ^ ^7}?
Are you able to catch a tiger even if you will get into its den?
The given affix is one of other concessive affixes that can not be combined with the suffix of past time and cannot express the supposition of action in the past. In the meaning of real concession the affix supposes any state of affairs in present time (13a).
Concessive affix is usually met in the construction and has
the meaning of uselessness of action or uselessness of attempt of its realization of action in a proposition despite of which it is necessary to recognize the state of affairs described in the main predicative unit of the sentence. For example:
(14) a. oHfg]
How hadn't I persuaded, everything was useless
This affix also possesses a hypothetical modality. The maintenance of the main part of the sentence expresses the real negative fact, therefore the final predicate at the given affix cannot be issued by the forms of an imperative optative because they refer to the aspect of future time.
Thus, depending on whether perceives speaker the maintenance of a proposition as the real or prospective fact, recognizes if it is possible or not different kinds of concessive meanings from real-concessive up to conditional-concessive can be expressed, and last type includes both potentially possible, and impossible assumptions. Besides, the category of modality in the Korean language finds its reflection in the conjunctive affixes. Modal characteristics of affixes allow to fix in parallel their grammatical context, in particular, modifying final predicates by time suffixes and forms of mood.
Literature
1. BaekNak-chen. A Study on Restructured Compound Conjunctive Ending in Korean. Seoul, 2003. 300 p.
2. Lee Eun-gyeong. A Study on Conjunctive Ending in Korean. Seoul. 2000. 317 p.
3. Malchukov A. L. Supervision above Semantics and Typology of Adversative Designs // Typological Substantiations in Grammar. M., 2004. P. 268-283.
4. Mustajoki A. Theory of Functional Syntax: from Semantic Structures to Language Means. 2006. 512 p.
5. Seo Jeong Soo. Grammar of the Korean Language. Seoul, 1996. P. 1185-1289.
6. Kholodovich A. A. Sketch of Grammar of the Korean language. Moscow, 1954. P. 173-176.
7. Yoon Phyeong Hyeong. A Study on the Conjunctive Endings of Korean. Seoul. 1989. 139 p.
ВЫРАЖЕНИЕ УСТУПИТЕЛЬНЫХ ОТНОШЕНИЙ В КОРЕЙСКОМ ЯЗЫКЕ
Цыденова Дарима Сандановна кандидат филологических наук, доцент, Бурятский государственный университет Россия, 670000, г. Улан-Удэ, ул. Ранжурова, 4
Уступительные отношения в корейском языке могут быть переданы при помощи множества различных аффиксов. Некоторые из них могут иметь как противительное, так и уступительное значение, другие — только уступительное. Два значения противопоставления и уступки различаются тем, что в значении противопоставления говорящий признает содержание зависимой предикативной единицы в качестве реального факта, уже существующего в действительности, или факт в будущем, который воспринимается говорящим в качестве реального. Если содержание зависимой предикативной единицы безотносительно к реальности факта и предполагает какое-либо действие или состояние, то в этом случае налицо значение уступки. Аффиксы -джиман, -(ы)на, -адо могут заменяться без заметного различия в значениях. Если в зависимой предикативной единице реализуется действие предполагаемое или не представляющееся возможным, употребление аффиксов -джиман и -(ы)на делает предложение неверным. Составные формы на ~(ы)ль манджон и -(ы)ль джионджон также выражают уступительное значение, и здесь важно то, что говорящий делает свой выбор в пользу действия зависимой предикативной единицы. Однако предпочтение отдается говорящим не из симпатии, а из-за нежелания выбора действия главной предикативной единицы. Но встречаются случаи, когда эти уступительные аффиксы используются в качестве противительных аффиксов. В таких предложениях содержание зависимой предикативной единицы является реальным фактом, и при таком условии аффиксы выражают противопоставление. Таким образом, в корейском языке при определении значений деепричастных аффиксов значительную роль играет модальность. В зависимости от того, воспринимает ли говорящий содержание зависимой предикативной единицы в качестве реального или предполагаемого факта, признает ли его реальным или нет, выражаются разные значения. Ключевые слова: уступительные отношения; корейский язык; деепричастные аффиксы; модальность; восприятие говорящего; противопоставление.
