Some structures that I have observed in my language study is the structure of phonetics and phonology. Frequently, I delve into the subtleties of sound and mouth positioning that greatly affects the quality of spoken Korean. Somyung has demonstrated how certain letters have a certain expression tied to them. For example, the letter ㅡ, requires the mouth to open like a smile or a locked jaw. These slight modifications demonstrate how phonetics lies at the foundation of Hangul. Similarly, Hangul also explores the use of phonology because some characters that have a similar shape, have a similar sound. The difference between certain letters may be minor, which is a hint that the sounds when spoken are not that different from each other. One clear example of this pattern and study is the characters ㄷ and ㅌ. The additional line introduces the idea that characters have a fundamental relationship with one another because the character ㅌhas the same sound as ㄷbut harsher when spoken. This minute difference can be related back to tones in Mandarin Chinese for me. I have also observed syntax as being a core component of my Korean studies. Even with a comprehensive mastery of the Korean alphabet, the practice of constructing legible words greatly relies on the use of syntax. For Hangul, one important rule is that vowels are associated with the consonant ㅇwhen the vowel is alone. This elementary rule introduces the significance of syntactical structure in Korean. Another fundamental rule would be the collection of consonants and vowels in a character and how they are structured. For Korean, each character must contain a consonant and vowel, as demonstrated by the ㅇ rule. There is also a sense of verticality in Hangul, where letters must be positioned in an appropriate manner.
With this myriad of disciplinary perspectives in Korean, it is important to select a direction to dive into first. It is difficult to learn a language without understanding the syntax of words and sentences so I have chosen to first proceed with mastering the structure of the Korean language. As interesting as learning the meaning of words and having a vast vocabulary is, the insight needed to learn and construct original thoughts in another language is inherently tied to understanding the syntax of that language. This is very different from my experience in non-natural languages because syntax is not as important as understanding fundamental concepts that transcend a specific language. However, I believe that in natural languages, understanding syntax is the pinnacle to my learning journey. With that being said, I have not changed the direction of my learning process based on these methodologies. I do find it intriguing that computational linguistics is a branch of linguistics because certain ideas behind artificial intelligence challenge the learning process that us humans are familiar with. There is murky water behind many learning algorithms where the proof of understanding a language seems to be indecipherable. I know that much of these learning systems is based on pattern recognition which Jean Aitchison had brought up as a fundamental function of human languages.
Comments