Grammatical Conceptualization Of The Russian Language In The Context Of Korean Linguoculture

Abstract

The present paper reveals conceptualization by grammatical means of natural languages, the specifics of the Russian grammatical categories of case and animateness/inanimateness by Korean linguoculture representatives. Conceptualization in non-cognate languages is based on different factors as it often depends on linguistic heritage. We have considered the historical background of the categories of case, animateness/inanimateness as well as prepositions in Russian and Korean. Teaching grammar is one of the most challenging aspects of teaching a foreign language. We need to make sure that the students assimilate what we are trying to deliver and feel confident using it on a day-to-day basis. The study focuses on the analysis of the mistakes made in essays, notes, application forms, reports, short text messages, grammar tests and exercises. The typical grammar mistakes are classified according to the means of expressing instrumental and sociative meanings of the category of case, spatial and time relations; functioning of the categories of animateness/inanimateness. The classification of mistakes made by Korean speakers studying Russian is aimed to determine “problem areas” of Russian grammar for the Korean linguoculture. Therefore, special attention should be paid to the formation of grammar skills through which the students will be able to overcome difficulties on their own, correct their mistakes and supplement the acquired knowledge. The results of the conducted research can be used to help Korean students learning Russian improve their grammatical competence.

Keywords: Category of case, categories of animateness/inanimateness, grammar, Korean language, Russian language, speech mistakes

Introduction

Nowadays new conceptual approaches to Russian grammar are evolving and need an in-depth descriptive analysis (Besedina, 2006; Kashkin, 2001; Klobukov, 2001; Kan, 2009; Lazarev, 2010; Vsevolodova, 2009). A general understanding of Russian grammar and the grammatical category of case in particular by other linguoculture speakers (in our study – Korean) is of special importance today.

Problem Statement

The good knowledge of Russian grammar contributes to the development of a wide range of linguistic skills and common language competence. The classification of mistakes made by Korean speakers studying Russian helps to determine “problem areas” of Russian grammar for this linguoculture. It also reveals the areas of incomplete understanding of Russian grammar that need additional explanation as well as the history of the issue.

Research Questions

The study is aimed at analyzing the mistakes made by the South Korean students who studied Russian at Irkutsk state university (the cities of Seoul, Taegy, Busan, Daejeon; the years of study - 2015-2019).

Purpose of the Study

The conducted research presents the analysis of the mistakes made in essays, notes, application forms, reports, short text messages as well as grammar texts and exercises done in class and at home. The classification of errors, theoretically proved and experimentally verified methodical recommendations for teaching foreign students Russian grammar can be used to compile resource books, develop practical grammar courses aimed at representatives of different linguocultures. Teaching staff can find them useful for developing, choosing and delivering training materials for students of humanitarian faculties.

To achieve the desired goal it is necessary to solve the following problems:

• consider historical background of some categories (case, animateness/inanimateness) as well as prepositions;
• study the main approaches to teaching Russian grammar as a Foreign Language;
• define basic notions of modern cognitive grammar (grammatical concepts, prototype) to provide the accuracy of terminology in this study;
• classify typical grammar mistakes made by Korean students studying Russian;
• offer the interpretation of case affixes based on the conceptual approach to Russian grammar as a Foreign Language taking into consideration the peculiarities of studying Russian grammar by Korean students.

Research Methods

We use the analytical method (description of grammar facts and their manifestation in one language (Russian) compared to the other (Korean)) to achieve the goals.

Findings

We have studied the mistakes of 45 students from South Korea. 11 of them are male, the others are female. They all belonged to the Department of Russian for Foreign Students in the Humanities. The majority of the Korean students studied Russian during a year at their university in South Korea. The target group in our research is students aged 18-27. The total number of the errors that we have analysed is 595.

Most mistakes have been made while using the ablative case. This case of the noun in the Korean language is called instrumental by Russian scholars of the Korean studies in a similar way to the Russian language. This agglutinative language does not use a “structural word” (in case of the Korean language it is postposition), grammatically unequivocal  affixes are added to the word root or the stem- 로 – after the open syllable, - 으로 – after the closed syllable, cf.: 연필로 쓰다 ‘писать карандашом’ (write in pencil), 볼펜으로 쓰다 ‘писать ручкой’ (write with a pen). The mistakes: *(*), * (*) – can be explained by the students’ lack of knowledge on this topic or inattention. In the given examples the students use the wrong prepositions, we should say and talking about an instrument used.

The comitative case with the endings와 - (after vowels) и 과 - (after consonants) in the Korean language expresses a sociative meaning. There are 4 types of meanings: 1) joining; 2) accompaniment; 3) counteraction; 4) comparison. In our study we focus on the first two meanings.

The comitative case having the meaning ‘joining’ is used to join homogeneous parts of the sentence: 아버지와 어머니와 형님과 누나가 왔다 ‘приехали отец, мать, брат и сестра’ (father, mother, brother and sister came); 그는 배와 사과를 안 먹어요 ‘он не ест груши и яблоки’ (he doesn’t eat pears and apples); 나는 공장과 회사에서 일했다 ‘я работал на заводе и в компании’ (I worked at the plant and in the company).

The Korean students use the correct form of the instrumental case in grammatical constructions with the copulative conjunction (and) emphasizing the equality of subjects while doing something, for example:

*У Маши не было родителей и жила она(*Masha didn’t have parents and she lived).

The comitative case having the meaning “with” or “accompanied by” indicates that an individual (or a thing) are ascribed the same type of participation in the event as the subject of the sentence and shares the state expressed in the predicate, e.g.: 모든 학문을 사람의 생활과 연결시키는 것이 필요하다 ‘прежде всего необходимо связать все науки с жизнью человека’ (First of all, it is necessary to connect all sciences with human life).

The instrumental case having a sociative meaning in the Russian language is often used with a preposition while the Korean language uses adverbs함께 и 같이 ‘together’ to express joint actions or states: 우리와 함께 노래한다 ‘поет вместе с нами’(sings with us).

The students from South Korea often use the means of the native language to express the equal status of subjects towards actions: * (*. It is known that in Russian we use the adverb (some Russian linguists, however, consider it a complex preposition)in this meaning. It should be noted that the Korean students use adverbs instead of complex prepositions making a mistake using: *. This must be taken into consideration while teaching them structural words.

Thus, the means of expressing the main meanings of the ablative case (instrumental and sociative) also reflect differences of grammatical conceptualization in the linguoculture under study:

• the Russian language makes a clear distinction between the means of expression, it is either a non-prepositional form or a combination с (со) (with) + the instrumental case;
• the instrumental case expresses the instrumental function in the Korean language, the comitative case conveys a sociative meaning.

The Korean students face some problems choosing the means of expressing animateness/inanimateness. Such a representation of reality can be considered ethnospecific in the Russian language since it is based on the semantic opposition “animate” and “inanimate” of the grammatical concept ‘animateness/inanimateness’. However, in case with Eastern languages it is typical to make a distinction between “animate” and “inanimate” (Kan, 2009, p. 59).

The words of two completely unrelated languages describing different groups or communities of “individuals” (,,,,, etc.) are the best example of reflecting whole units with relevant features for all speakers of a particular language in the linguistic view of the world. Generic terms of quite many living beings are considered inanimate in the Russian language while the nouns due to the personification are referred to animate in the Korean language” (Mazur, 2004, p. 85).

The Korean linguoculture is a cultural identity by nature. It is due to the special role of community in Korean society. The words denoting “individuals” such as,as well as countries’ names are animate. It seems that this fact is a reason for a typical mistake: **). The Korean students use the plural noun instead of a singular one.

The category of animacy at the morphological level is the overlap of the accusative case with the genitive case in the singular (apart from nouns ending in, e.g.:,) and masculine nouns in the plural ( –, –); the overlap of the same case forms of all feminine nouns in the plural ( –) and some neuter nouns (the names of living beings irrespective of gender, e.g.:,,,,,,).

The accusative case of unanimated nouns following the same pattern as animated nouns overlaps with the nominative case in the plural ( –, –).

We can find the division of nouns into animated and unanimated in:

• opposition of the endings of the dative case에게-еке (living beings) и 에 -е (objects);
• opposition of the endings of the complex cases including the ending에게 -еке (for animated nouns) и 에-е (for unanimated nouns)in the dative case;
• dubbing endings of the dative case한테-хантхе, 께 -кке that are used only in case of animated nouns.

Comparing the means of expressing the category under study in unrelated languages (Russian and Korean), we come to the conclusion that the dominant features are different. The domination of gender (most often it is male) and the number (most often it is plural) differentiate the opposition ‘animateness/inanimateness’ by means of syncretism. The choice of specific endings in the Korean language is the main means of differentiating ‘animateness/inanimateness’. These grammar peculiarities should be taken into consideration in the process of teaching Korean students the Russian language in order to avoid the following mistakes: *; (*(*In these examples the Korean students use the wrong endings. They make this mistake using the genitive case instead of the accusative one.

The numerals (both cardinal and collective numerals) used with animated nouns have overlapping forms of the accusative and genitive case. Unfortunately, Korean students find it difficult to agree numerals with animate nouns. It results in distorting the meaning, cf.: *(*. – *.)

There is an influence of the category of ‘animateness’ in cases when the noun is not used in the accusative case. These are sentences with pronouns-adjectivesand () used to join an attributive clause to the principle. These word forms agree with nouns used in the nominative case in the plural but they are in the accusative case due to the verb of the attributive clause. Students studying Russian as a foreign language often make mistakes in the agreement of nouns with relative pronouns often forgetting about the main grammatical characteristic – ‘animate/unanimate’, cf.: * – *(*There are songs which I can’t listen to. – *We see two forwards that the head coach changes).

The third grammar problem for Korean students studying Russian as a foreign language is the semantics of spatial prepositions andThese prepositions tell us the of in to

в (in) and на (on) talking about spatial relations, cf.: *Мама слушает музыку филармонии– *Сегодня я поздно приходил занятее (*Mother is listening to music (instead of) the philharmonic. – *Today I have been late (instead of) the class.) It proves the fact that prepositions have a various semantic load and their meanings overlap only partially in different languages.

The system of spartial relations in the Korean language has the means of conveying the idea “inside of something” () and “on the surface” (). However, Korean postpositions differ from Russian ones in the use.

Let us consider these differences in greater detail using the “geometric” approach to the study of prepositions. We use the feature “n-dimension”. We choose only this approach to analyze prepositions since it is essential “to determine the status of a linguistic unit in the system comparing it to other units” (Filipenko, 2000, p. 14).

According to the “n-dimension” feature, objects as constituent parts of space are classified into one-dimensional (,), two-dimensional (,) and three-dimensional (,). Some objects in space can be conceptualized from the geometric point of view as points (,), lines (), in other words they are the objects having none of the space dimensions (Kravchenko, 1996).

It is known that adverbs and nouns in the Old Russian language were used as prepositions “for greater accuracy, more shades of meaning” (Astaf’eva, 1974, p. 15). In our view, the syntactic category of convertion is universal for many word languages. Thus, the spatial postposition속is related to the noun속 – ‘soul’ (Kholodovich , 2010). Comparing the definitions of in different dictionaries, we see that this word form is used to describe the inner world, mental health of human and it regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body (Dictionary of the modern Russian language, 1954; Ozhegov, 1988).

The postposition안 is used to convey the meaning inside of something along with the postposition 속. However, their use is different in describing three-dimensional spaces due to the semantics of these spaces. facts, the similarity of the noun and the postposition, the definition of the word속 as ‘soul’ we can conclude that the postposition속 is used to describe objects which ‘inside’ has some filling, e.g.: 물 속에;.

If an object is hollow inside, for example a dress, the postposition안 is used to describe it. This postposition originates from the noun meaning ‘lining’ (Ramstedt, 2010, p. 187), cf.: 방 안에 – в комнате (in the room); 교실 안에 в аудитории (in the classroom).

Such a division of spaces and, respectively, the use of different means to describe three-dimensional objects are a reason for the mistakes made by the South Korean students, e.g.: *(*We rest (instead of) Lake Baikal off-duty); The students themselves explain such mistakes by their wish to express the idea of being in the water to swim (three-dimensional space), although this type of rest takes less time than being on the shore of a waterbody on holiday (two-dimensional space in both languages). A long-lasting situation is described in many world languages because there is a two-dimensional space, structural correlates are used both in Russian and Korean. Thus, the Russian prepositions and the Korean postposition denoting special relations “inside of an object”/ “on the surface” or the direction “inside”/ “towards the surface” can be considered only “semantic equivalents” because they are not always “structural correlates”.

The choice of means to express these ideas can often be difficult for foreigners because the perception for native speakers of Russian does not depend only on physical features of an object but also on the linguistic heritage. We have not studied all the occurrences connected with “conventionality” (Seliverstova, 2000, p. 195), we have only paid attention to the cases when the students make mistakes.

Most often the Korean students wanted to use the synonymic preposition using the following word combinations:,,. It seems to us that etymology can help us to explain quite many linguistic phenomena. Let us consider the etymology of the noun. This word is not Russian in its origin, according to Margaryan (1959) it was borrowed from German (), the source material was a Latin word – остановка, станция (stop, station) (p. 118). In the old days post provided such services as carrying passengers and delivering correspondence directly handed with the use of horse-drawn carriages. Latter post started delivering letters, parcels, money which people received in the post building. However, this space did not become three-dimensional for native speakers of Russian.

The lexemeoriginated from the owner’s name of near London park James Vauxhall. It is known that,,are limited spaces for native speakers of Russian therefore these nouns are used with the preposition. However, the conceptualization of the notiondid not happen at the time of building an entertainment park in Pavlovsk (near Petersburg) but after the construction of the railway between Pavlovsk and Petersburg. The railway ended at the park, the train made a stop there. It is obvious that the places of stops are considered two-dimensional since their meaning do not relate to limited spaces.

The noun borrowed from Polish(,) came into use during Peter the Great’s era. The secondary nasalization in the word form appeared under the influence of the word. If we compare the first mentioning of these words in written sources, we see that the noun () dates back to 1669, () to 1777 and() is between them according to the time of their mentioning. It turns out that the lexeme() has a motivated use with the preposition. Thus, we consider it necessary to use this word while explaining students the traditional use of the words under study since it is a prototype that can be either a closed or an open space () in contrast to the lexemesand.

Linguistic concepts are based on prototypes. This is due to the fact that semantic categories have the centre/periphery. One of the discoveries of cognitive psychology is that cognition requires the combination of two principles: structural stability and flexibility. In other words, to make it effective it is necessary to maintain a permanent state of the system of the category at least for some time. On the other hand, the system should be flexible to adapt to changes. A prototypical organization of concepts meets these requirements because the prototype has a strong centre making it possible for native speakers to find prototypical meanings, make the difference between them and a more amorphous, changeable, dependent periphery (Chenki, 1997; Lakoff, 1988; Pekar, 2000; Telia, 1996; Vasil’ev, 2009, p. 182).

The lexeme() also denotes a complex of buildings to serve passengers and handling their luggage. The lexemes() and() mean an open space with buildings, offices, equipment used to manufacture consumer goods. However, in both cases these spaces are conceptualized as two-dimensional spaces. Thus, these nouns are used only with the preposition. We believe the correct use of these words should be explained on the basis of the lexeme, which is a prototype forand.

The students learning Russian as a foreign language take into account the distribution of these lexemes and use the preposition by association, cf.: *(*(()(*(). Such spaces being parts of plants and factories are considered three-dimensional because they are already premises. As the action takes places inside the preposition () must be used.

There is an opposite situation when foreign students make mistakes saying: *(*at the institute, in the faculty). Thus, if we talk about educational institutions we think them to be premises (the prepositionis used) but their parts are a territory, an area (preposition is used).

The classification of educational institutions is made according to the age and students’ specialization: school, vocational school, college, institution, academy, university.

Therefore the names, lesson periods and activities are different:,,,,,,,. All these words are used with the preposition. The Korean students often forget about this rule and make mistakes: *(*. They shouldn’t forget that the correct use in the Russian sentence is the preposition.

Students sometimes find time prepositions and particularly difficult. The Korean language uses the dative case to indicate time. However, its choice is not motivated by the relations expressed by the preposition as agglutinative languages use its equivalent that is “always in postposition” (Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1998). In our study we focus only on the cases when the time of action coincides with the given time and also we pay attention to the way this meaning is conveyed in the Korean language. This agglutinative language in contrast to inflectional Russian does not uses a “structural word”, the above-mentioned grammatically unequivocal affix is joined to the root or stem에 -, cf.: 오후 세 시에- ‘в три часа дня’ (at 3 p.m.). This fact explains South Korean students’ mistakes:())

The exact time of the action is very important in the Korean linguoculture. It is well-known that the Russians divide the period of 24 hours into morning (from sunrise till 10-11 a.m.), day (from 10-11 a.m. till sunset), evening (from sunset till 10-11 p.m), night (from 10-11 p.m. till sunrise) (Vsevolodova, 1975, p. 30). As for the Koreans, they divide 24 hours into two parts; “from 0 till midday– 오전 and from 12 p.m. till midnight – 오후» (Kasatkina et al., 2004, p. 117), cf.: 오전 여덟시부터 오후 다섯시까지 ‘с восьми часов до пяти часов’ (from 5 a.m. till 5 p.m.). The prepositions 부터 ‘c’ (from) и 까지 ‘до’ (till), denoting action are between two time periods.

The Korean students often make mistakes being guided by the syntactic structure of their native language. They forget that the conceptual representation of 24 hours is different in Russian and Korean: *. It is important to take into consideration the fact that speakers of the languages belonging to the same language group conceptualize the period of 24 hours differently. This period is divided into three parts in the English language: “morning (from midnight till midday), afternoon (from midday till 6 p.m.) and evening (from 6 p.m. till midnight)” (Barkhudarov, 1969, p. 82).

Learning English is much more popular in South Korea than learning Russian. The majority of Koreans study English at school. Thus, the knowledge of its grammatical system can be used to learn other European languages. Sometimes the Korean students make a mistake saying: *. They explain this mistake by drawing a parallel with English: *. In Russian preposition is used. However, foreign language students should remember that the use of the Russian prepositions andwith nouns to describe spatial or time relations can be different from the grammar principles in other languages. It is due to different conceptualization of the situations described therein with the help of “structural words”.

Conclusion

Comparing the peculiarities of grammatical conceptualization in Russian vs. Korean linguoculture we can sum up:

• The category of case is a universal and logical concept. We have used the term grammatical concept in the study. The grammatical concept “case” is classified as it is in humans’ mind due to the language. The semantic meaning “relation” is considered concept-forming referring to the case.
• The misuse of cases by the Korean students results from the “competition” between the languages while choosing the way of conveying the intended meaning by means of a foreign language.
• The students’ answers concerning the choice of the wrong grammar form have revealed the reason for the mistakes. It is the differences in grammatical conceptualization in Russian vs. their native language.
• The means of conveying the main meanings of the ablative case (instrumental and sociative) in Russian and Korean reflect differences of grammatical conceptualization. It is either a non-prepositional form or a combination с (со) (with)+ the instrumental case in Russian. The instrumental case expresses the instrumental function in Korean and conveys a sociative meaning.
• The category animateness/inanimateness which representation is based on the specifics of the conceptualization of reality. The given opposition reflects the stereotypes of everyday consciousness of many generations, a “naïve” view of the world within the system of the language. Comparing the means of representing the category animateness/inanimateness in Russian and Korean we can come to the conclusion that the dominant factors are different.
• Studying the semantics of the prepositions в (in) and на (on) in Russian, we have found that these spatial prepositions indicate both relations between objects and different types of spatial conceptualization around objects. These prepositions have conceptual contents representing basic concepts “including”, “agreement and contact”. Our research has shown that “structural words” – postpositions 속сок и 안ан verbalize these concepts.
• In Russian linguoculture time is thought to be discrete, but in the Korean linguoculture is non-discrete, cyclical since the Korean language does not use a “structural word” for this notion.

Thus, the indicates that the differences in conceptualization of time in various

linguocultures account for foreign students’ mistakes in choosing the means of expressing temporal relations. This fact should be taken into consideration while teaching foreign students Russian.

References

• Astaf’eva, N. N. (1974). Prepositions in the Russian language and their use peculiarities. Minsk, Vysshaya schola.

• Barkhudarov, L. S. (1969). Twelve names and twelve things. Russian Language Abroad, 4, 79-86.

• Besedina, N. A. (2006). Morphological concepts [Doctoral dissertation]. Tambov State University.

• Chenki, A. (1997). Fundamental trends of modern American linguistics. In A. A. Kibrik, I. M. Kobozeva, I. A. Sekirina (Eds.), Semantics in cognitive linguistics. Progress.

• Dictionary of the modern Russian language in 17 volumes (1954). Academy of Science.

• Filipenko, M. V. (2000). Research into the semantics of prepositions. In D. Pajar, O. N. Seliverstova (Eds.), Problems of description of prepositions in modern linguistic theories (pp. 12-56). Russian Dictionaries.

• Kan, Kai. (2009). Conceptual understanding of grammatical categories of the Russian noun in contrast to the Chinese Language [Cand. Dissertation]. Pushkin State Russian Language Institute.

• Kasatkina, I. L., Jung In Sun, & Pentiukhova, V. E. (2004). Textbook for learning Korean: for university students. Muravey.

• Kashkin, V. B. (2001). Methodological problems of cognitive linguistics. In I.A. Sternin (Ed.), Universal grammar concepts. Voronezh State University.

• Kholodovich, A. A. (2010). Grammar overview of the Korean language. Textbook for University Stud. Moscow, URSS.

• Klobukov, E. V. (2001). Categorization levels and the system of semantic categories (from observing the conceptual framework of functional grammar). In A. V. Bondarko (Ed.), All-Russia scientific conference. Theoretical problems of functional grammar (pp. 36-45). Nauka.

• Kravchenko, A. V. (1996). Language and perception: the cognitive aspects of linguistic categorization. Irkutsk State University.

• Lakoff, G. (1988). Thinking in a mirror of classifiers. New in Foreign Linguistics. The cognitive aspects of language, XXIII, 12-51.

• Lazarev, V. A. (2010). Morphological categories: anthropocentric and linguoculturological aspects of interpretation [Doctoral dissertation]. Rostov-on-Don, Southern Federal University.

• Margaryan, B. A. (1959). About the word “post”. Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 2, 117-118.

• Mazur, Ju. N. (2004). Korean Grammar (Morphology. Word-formation). Muravey.

• Ozhegov, S. I. (1988). Dictionary of the Russian Language. Russian Language.

• Pekar, V. I. (2000). The semantics of prepositions of vertical juxtaposition in the cognitive aspect: the English prepositions above, over and the Russian preposition над [Cand. Dissertation]. Ufa, Bashkir State Pedagogical University.

• Ramstedt, G. (2010). Korean grammar. Publishing house “LCI”.

• Seliverstova, O. N. (2000). Research of prepositions semantics. In O. N. Seliverstova (Ed.), The semantic structure of the preposition на (pp. 189-242). Russian Dictionaries.

• Stepanova, Z. M. (2006). The role of prepositions in shaping linguoculturological peculiarities of spatial concepts (based on Russian and French). [Cand. Dissertation]. Ulyanovsk.

• Telia, V. N. (1996). Russian Phraseology. Semantic, pragmatic and lingocultural aspects. Languages of the Russian Culture.

• Vasil’ev, L. M. (2009). Modern linguistic semantics. Publishing House “Librikon”.

• Vsevolodova, M. V. (1975). Ways of expressing temporal relations in the modern Russian language. Moscow State University Press.

• Vsevolodova, M. V. (2009). Fields, categories and concepts in the grammatical system of the language. Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 3, 76-79.

• Yartseva, V. N. (Ed.) (1998). Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary. Bol’shaya Rossiyskaya entsiklopediya.