현대몽골어와 한국어의 의도법 비교 연구

A Comparative Study on the volitive modal between Modern Mongolian & Korean

Volitive is a form which illustrates an psychological attitude of speaker for certain situation. A basic form of in Korean is mostly modal expresstion, such as ‘-겠-‘, ‘-ㄹ거’, ‘-ㄹ것이-’, ‘-(으)ㄹ게(요)’, ‘-(으)ㄹ래(요)’ For Mongolian, one-to-one correspondence with four basic forms of Korean which are modal ending such as ‘-겠-‘, ‘-ㄹ거-’ is virtually impossible. However, preceding modifier which indicates a meaning of volitive in front of a sentence such as ‘-я/е/ё’, ‘-мз’, ‘-сугай2’, ‘-на4’, ‘-лаа4’, ‘-х болох’, ‘-х гэж байх’, ‘-хаар болох’ and modal particle which is added to the back of a final ending are verified to be used as one-to-multi correspondence. Volitive modal expression in Korean is able to be divided into two forms. First one is an adverb of manner and second one is a modal expresstion which is composed of a grammatical collocation. However supposition modal expression in Mongolian is able to be divided into three forms. First one is a preceding modifier that indicates a meaning of supposition in front of a sentence. Second one is a post modifier that is indicates a meaning of volitive in the back of a sentence, and third one is an assistant verb that can be used with parallel auxiliary verbs connective suffix. This study attempts to compare and analyze the two languages in terms of syntactical and semantic feature in volitive modal expression. The purpose of the study is to investigate the commonalities and differences between two languages specifically by reviewing syntactical feature and semantic feature with comparing and analyzing syntactic functional difference. A study by Ю.Мөнх-Амгалан(2014) defined modal expression of volitive as preceding modifier and post modifier separately. Based on the researches which have conducted on volitive modal expression, this study reviews what kind of preceding component can be seen with volitive modal expression in syntactic perspective. This study also compares and analyzes how volitive modal expression is different each other in terms of semantic perspective, apart from common meaning. With this analysis, the study compares and analyzes modal expression in Mongolian in response to volitive modal expression in Korean. As a result, the study can draw a conclusion as follows. Therefore, we can verify that it is not possible for one-to-one correspondence, but possible for one-to-multi correspondence between Mongolian and Korean in the way of realizing volitive modal expression.