GRAMMATICAL CONCEPTUALIZATION OF THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE IN THE CONTEXT OF KOREAN LINGUOCULTURE

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.


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. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2021.12.92 Corresponding Author: Irina Pashkova Selection and peer-review under

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-로ро -after the open syllable, -로로ыро -after the closed syllable, cf.: 로로로 로로йɔнпхил-ро ссы-да 'писать карандашом' (write in pencil), 로로로로 로로польпхен-ыро ссы-да 'писать ручкой' (write with a pen). The mistakes: *Художник нарисовал портрет девочки с черным карандашом (*The artist painted the girl's portrait by black pen), *Мужчина написал адрес с ручкой (*The man wrote the address to me by a pen) -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 in pen and with a pencil talking about an instrument used.
The comitative case with the endings로 -ва (after vowels) и 로 -гва (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 Korean students use the correct form of the instrumental case in grammatical constructions with the copulative conjunction и (and) emphasizing the equality of subjects while doing something, for example: *У Маши не было родителей и жила она с бабушкой и дедушкой (*Masha didn't have parents and she lived with grandma and grandpa).
The instrumental case having a sociative meaning in the Russian language is often used with a preposition while the Korean language uses adverbs로로хамкке и 로로качхи 'together' to express joint actions or states: 로로로 로로 로로로로 ури-ва хамкке норэ-ха-нда '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: *Вчера вечером я долго сказал вместе немецами и кореяками (*I talked long together with the Germans and Koreans yesterday evening). It is known that in Russian we use the adverb (some Russian linguists, however, consider it a complex preposition) вместе с (together with) in this meaning. It should be noted that the Korean students use adverbs instead of complex prepositions making a mistake using together with: *Станция метро находится рядом этого дома (The subway station is together with this house. -c.f. The subway station is near this house). 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" (nation, crowd, troop, patrol, army, 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 "로로инмин 'nation', 로로кунтэ 'army', 로로путэ 'troop' due to the personification are referred to animate in the Korean language" (Mazur, 2004, p. 85).
The Korean linguoculture is a collective cultural identity by nature. It is due to the special role of community in Korean society. The words denoting "individuals" such as family, motherland as well as countries' names are animate. It seems that this fact is a reason for a typical mistake: *генерал наблюдал вражеских армий (*The general watched the invading armies). The Korean students use the plural noun armies instead of a singular one army.
The accusative case of unanimated nouns following the same pattern as animated nouns overlaps with the nominative case in the plural (растут цветы -купил цветы (plants grow -bought plants), открыты окна -помыл окна (windows opened -washed windows).
We can find the division of nouns into animated and unanimated in:  opposition of the endings of the dative case로로-еке (living beings) и 로 -е (objects);  opposition of the endings of the complex cases including the ending로로 -еке (for animated nouns) и 로-е (for unanimated nouns)in the dative case;  dubbing endings of the dative case로로-хантхе, 로 -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: *Я смотрю фильма. (*I am watching a film) *Они всегда готовы искать оптимальных решений (*They always try to find the best solutions). 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 two, three, four, both 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.: *В цехе работает двух рабочих -*Позвоните через двух минут (*There are two workers on the plant floor. -

*Call in two minutes.)
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-adjectives которые and которых (which) 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.: *Есть песни, которых я не могу слушать -*Мы видим двух нападающих, которые меняет главный тренер (*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 в (in) and на (on). These prepositions tell us the position of one thing in relation to another, "each time when they are used regardless of the context, they represent conceptual content namely the concepts "including", "agreement and contact" (Pekar, 2000, p. 9). It is https: //doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2021.12.92 Corresponding Author: Irina Pashkova Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference eISSN:  771 obvious that these concepts refer to the basic ones since humans need them in order to deal with the environment in their daily life. Speaking about the nature of conceptualization, Stepanova (2006) states that "prepositions verbalize relational concepts … the generalized representation of relations between objects, phenomena, action, etc." (p. 16).
However, the question arises whether similar prepositions verbalize these concepts in different languages. We have noticed that the Korean students face the problem using synonymic preposition в (in) and на (on) talking about spatial relations, cf.: *Мама слушает музыку на филармонии-*Сегодня я поздно приходил в занятее (*Mother is listening to music on (instead of at) the philharmonic. -*Today I have been late in (instead of for) 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" (로, 로ан, сок) and "on the surface" (로 ви). 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 (thread, wire), two-dimensional (road, wall) and three-dimensional (house, river). Some objects in space can be conceptualized from the geometric point of view as points (star, spark), lines (lightning), 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 postposition로сок is related to the noun로сок -'soul' (Kholodovich , 2010). Comparing the definitions of soul 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 postposition로ан is used to convey the meaning inside of something along with the postposition 로сок. However, their use is different in describing three-dimensional spaces due to the semantics of these spaces. Taking into account the above-mentioned facts, the similarity of the noun and the postposition, the definition of the word로сок as 'soul' we can conclude that the postposition로сок is used to describe objects which 'inside' has some filling, e.g.: 로 로로 муль сог-е -в воде (in water); 로 로로суп сог-е -в лесу (in the forest).
Such a division of spaces and, respectively, the use of different means to describe threedimensional objects are a reason for the mistakes made by the South Korean students, e.g.: *В свободное https: //doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2021.12.92 Corresponding Author: Irina Pashkova Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference eISSN:  772 от занятий время мы отдыхаем в Байкале (*We rest on (instead of at) 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: на почте, на вокзале, на заводе, на фабрике (at the post, at the railway station, at the plant, at the factory). It seems to us that etymology can help us to explain quite many linguistic phenomena. Let us consider the etymology of the noun почта (post). This word is not Russian in its origin, according to Margaryan (1959) it was borrowed from German (post), the source material was a Latin word posita -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 horsedrawn 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 lexeme вокзал originated from the owner's name of near London park James Vauxhall. It is known that park, garden, forest are limited spaces for native speakers of Russian therefore these nouns are used with the preposition в (in). However, the conceptualization of the notion вокзал (railway station) did 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 станция (station) borrowed from Polish stacja (station, stop) came into use during Peter the Great's era. The secondary nasalization in the word form станционный appeared under the influence of the word стан. If we compare the first mentioning of these words in written sources, we see that the noun почта (post) dates back to 1669, вокзал (railway station) to 1777 and станция (station) is between them according to the time of their mentioning. It turns out that the lexeme станция (station) has a motivated use with the preposition на (at). 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 (на автомобильной заправочной станции /на станции метро (at the petrol station/at the subway station)) in contrast to the lexemes почта (post) and вокзал (railway station).
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 https: //doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2021.12.92 Corresponding Author: Irina Pashkova Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference eISSN:  773 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 вокзал (railway station) also denotes a complex of buildings to serve passengers and handling their luggage. The lexemes завод (plant) and фабрика (factory) 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 на (at). We believe the correct use of these words should be explained on the basis of the lexeme территория (area), which is a prototype for завод (plant) and фабрика (factory).
The students learning Russian as a foreign language take into account the distribution of these lexemes and use the preposition на (at) by association, cf.: *Мой отец работает на фабрике (*My father works at the factory), на мастерской (at the studio (at instead of in) -*Анны завтра не будет … на столовой (*Ann won't be at the canteen tomorrow (at instead of in). 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 в (in) must be used.
There is an opposite situation when foreign students make mistakes saying: *В институте, в историческом факультете <…> (*at the institute, in the faculty). Thus, if we talk about educational institutions we think them to be premises (the preposition в (in) is used) but their parts are a territory, an area (preposition на (on) 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: lesson, class, seminar, elective course, tutorial, laboratory class, self-tuition, practicals. All these words are used with the preposition на (on). The Korean students often forget about this rule and make mistakes: *только сегодня я поздно в занятии (*only today I am late for the class). They shouldn't forget that the correct use in the Russian sentence is the preposition на (on).
Students sometimes find time prepositions в (in/at) and на (on) 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 stem에е, cf.: 오후 세 시에оху се си-е 'в три часа дня' (at 3 p.m.). This fact explains South Korean students' mistakes: *(В) пятница мы будем поехать в М.Т (*At Friday (instead of on) we are going to М.Т.) 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 https: //doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2021.12.92 Corresponding Author: Irina Pashkova Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference eISSN: 2357-1330 774 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-로로оджон and from 12 p.m. till midnight -로로оху» (Kasatkina et al., 2004, p. 117), cf.: 로로 로로로로로 로로 로로로로로оджон ёдоль си-бутхо оху тасот си-ккаджи 'с восьми часов утра до пяти часов вечера' (from 5 a.m. till 5 p.m.). The prepositions 로로бутхо 'c' (from) и 로로ккаджи '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: *Мы будем полетать в Корею в 5ого июле ночь 2 часа (*We are going to arrive in Korea on 5 July at 2 a.m). 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: *Он хочет приехать сюда на пятницу. They explain this mistake by drawing a parallel with English: *He wants to come here on Friday. In Russian preposition в (in) is used. However, foreign language students should remember that the use of the Russian prepositions в (in) and на (on) with 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 nonprepositional form or a combination с (со) (with)+ the instrumental case in Russian. The https: //doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2021.12.92 Corresponding Author: Irina Pashkova Selection and peer-review under   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 로сок и 로ан verbalize these concepts.
 In Russian linguoculture time is thought to be discrete, but in the Korean linguoculture is nondiscrete, cyclical since the Korean language does not use a "structural word" for this notion.
Thus, the conducted analysis 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.