preface

1.
introduction

1.1.
Research Purpose
1.2.
Research subjects
1.3.
Previous research on Korean result syntax
1.4.
Structure of the discussion

2.
Basic discussion

2.1.
Concept and types of result syntax
2.1.1.
The concept of traditional 'Resultative Construction'
2.1.2.
The concept of extended result syntax
2.2.
Chinese result sentence
2.2.1.
Chinese Bor's result display function
2.2.2.
Types and Features of Chinese Result Sentences
2.3.
Definition of concepts and scope demarcation for Korean result syntax
2.3.1.
The concept of Korean result syntax
2.3.2.
Types of Korean result sentences

3.
'XPge+V' type result syntax

3.1.
The nature of the ending '-ge'
3.2.
Determination of the result syntax of the 'XP+V' type
3.2.1.
Handling of auxiliary verb conjugations
3.2.2.
Types and characteristics of 'VPge+V' that display results
3.2.3.
Types and characteristics of the 'AP-ge+V' type result structure
3.3.
'APge+V' indicating manner and description

4.
'NP to V' type result syntax

4.1.
The nature and scope of 'NP로 V' as a Korean result structure
4.2.
Types and characteristics of the positional change 'NP to V' construction
4.2.1.
Intransitive verb position change 'NP to V' construction
4.2.2.
Transitive verb position change 'NP to V' construction
4.3.
Types and characteristics of the 'NP to V' state change construct
4.3.1.
'NP to V', a verb indicating a change of state
4.3.2.
Class of verbs used in the 'NP to V' construction of state change
4.4.
Output syntax
4.4.1.
Types and characteristics of Korean production phrases
4.4.2.
The relationship between the production syntax and the 'NP to V' result syntax
4.4.3.
The relationship between Chinese result sentences and production sentences

5.
'V1 language V2' type result syntax

5.1.
The nature and scope of 'V1-word V2' as a Korean result sentence
5.2.
'V1-V2' result display function
5.3.
Aspect display function of 'V1 language V2'
5.4.
The event integration display function and syntactic characteristics of 'V1 language V2'

6.
A comparative analysis of Korean and Chinese result structures

6.1.
Comparative analysis of the encoding patterns of Korean and Chinese result sentences
6.1.1.
Comparison of the position and grammatical categories of the result display components
6.1.2.
Similarities and differences in the meaning of the results displayed by the Korean and Chinese result sentences
6.1.3.
Similarities and Differences Between Korean-Chinese and English Result Sentences
6.2.
A Study on the Correspondence between Korean and Chinese Results through Text Analysis
6.2.1.
Correspond with one verb
6.2.1.1.
Corresponds to a single morpheme verb
6.2.1.2.
Corresponds with one causative verb
6.2.1.3.
Corresponds to other derivatives and compound words
6.2.2.
Corresponds with the 'V1 language V2(...)' structure
6.2.2.1.
Respond with 'V1 V2'
6.2.2.2.
Respond with 'V1 V2 V3(...)'
6.2.3.
Respond with the 'Xge+V' syntax
6.2.4.
Respond with the 'X+V' syntax
6.2.5.
Corresponds with the 'NP to + V' construct
6.2.6.
Corresponds with the 'NP+V' construct
6.2.7.
Respond with an adverb
6.2.8.
Other responses

7.
Korean Consequence Sentence Training for Chinese Learners

7.1.
The need for education
7.2.
Current Status of Korean Educational Research and Education on Result Structure
7.3.
Acquisition patterns of Korean sentence structures by Chinese learners
7.4.
Suggestions for Teaching Korean Consequence Sentences to Chinese Learners

8.
conclusion

8.1.
Summary and organization
8.2.
Remaining issues

References

Based on the description of the result syntax formats
Identify the relationship between them
A study that revealed the general characteristics of Korean result structures.

The first objective of this study is to comprehensively understand the linguistic facts related to the semantic category of 'result' in Korean and to describe the specific linguistic phenomena related to the result category as faithfully as possible, focusing on 'Resultative Construction'.
The second goal is to identify the relationships between each type of result structure based on the description of each type of result structure and to further elucidate the general characteristics of Korean result structure.

The author adopts the method of cross-linguistic comparison and contrast as the main research method because this method of comparison can provide clues to uncover hidden facts about the Korean result category, and also because it will provide an opportunity to observe cross-linguistically the aspect of event integration in which an antecedent event and its result are expressed within a single clause structure.

This study also places emphasis on comparison with Chinese result sentences.
If we assume that there are languages ​​in which the semantic categories of the result correspond consistently and seamlessly to the grammatical categories that express it, and languages ​​in which they do not, Chinese can be considered to be the former, and Korean the latter.
In Korean, the result display function is mixed with other functions, and the method of displaying results is also scattered in various forms, so it is difficult to grasp information related to results by looking only at Korean.
Therefore, the author attempts to approach the Korean result structure more effectively through comparison with Chinese, which has a more systematic way of grammatically expressing the meaning of 'result', and attempts text analysis as one of the methods.

Based on the results thus obtained, the author suggests the necessity and direction of Korean result sentence education for Chinese learners from the perspective of Korean language education.
This study's examination of the onomasiological approach, which begins with meaning and moves on to form, offers practical significance in that it provides basic data for comparative and contrastive research across languages ​​and can be effectively utilized in second language teaching and learning.

Chapter 1 clarifies the purpose and subject of the study and introduces representative previous studies. Chapter 2 introduces the concept of ‘result structure’ and, based on the understanding gained here, specifies the definition and scope of Korean result structure covered in this study.


Chapters 3 through 5 consist of a thorough examination of representative forms of Korean result syntax.
Chapter 3 mainly examines the 'AP-ge V' construction, which expresses the result with an adjective, and Chapter 4 examines the 'NP-ro V' construction, which expresses the result with a particle containing a nominal component.
In Chapter 5, we will examine the case where the result is indicated as 'V2' among the 'V1-V2' verb connectives as a type of result structure.

Chapters 6 and 7 attempt to apply the above considerations on Korean result structures to comparative research between Korea and China and Korean language education.
Chapter 6 presents the similarities and differences between Korean and Chinese result syntax, and then quantitatively reveals the correspondence between the result display formats of the two languages ​​through text analysis and analyzes the trends between them.
Chapter 7 raises the need for Korean result sentence education for Chinese learners and presents, through textbook analysis and surveys, that the current state of education and learners' acquisition of this topic is not at a desirable level.
Finally, Chapter 8 summarizes the previous chapters and raises remaining issues.