Selection Mechanisms of Basic Adjectives and the Drivers of Expressing the Same Meaning in Chinese and Korean: Focusing on the Contrast with Basic Korean Adjectives Corresponding to‘da(大)’

This study focuses on the Chinese basic adjective ‘da’(big), which shows the most significant differences in expression compared to Korean adjectives. It examines the semantic and usage differences of basic adjectives in Chinese and Korean and explores the reasons for these differences. When ‘da’ appears with a noun and is used as a predicate, it often corresponds to Korean adjectives other than ‘keuda’, such as ‘seda’, ‘nopda’, and ‘manta’. The study classifies and analyzes the meanings and uses of each type.Among the examples where ‘n+da’ or ‘n+henda’ in Chinese corresponds to adjectives other than ‘keuda’ in Korean, ‘seda’(strong) is the most common counterpart. In Korean, adjectives like ‘seda’ and ‘ganghada’ are frequently used to directly express intensity due to their high typicality and usability. In contrast, in Chinese, the typicality and usability of adjectives that directly indicate intensity are lower, leading to the use of ‘da’ to indicate the intensity through the ‘size of the object.’ The study also examines how ontological metaphor mechanisms allow ‘da’ to visually represent ‘size’ in entities like ‘feng’(wind), ‘liqi, liliang, jinr’(strength), ‘wei’(taste/smell), and ‘piqi’(temper).Next, the study looks at how ‘mingsheng/mingqi’(reputation) and ‘xuewen’(knowledge) are generally described with ‘da’ in Chinese but with ‘nopda’ (high) in Korean. To indicate the degree of abstract concepts such as reputation and knowledge, both languages use adjectives representing spatial concepts, considering these abstract entities as visual objects through ontological metaphors. Despite the differences in adjective selection, ‘da’ and ‘nopda’ both primarily denote spatial concepts and are commonly used to intuitively understand the extent of magnitude.Finally, the study examines the phenomenon where ‘da’ is used to describe age in Chinese, while ‘manta’(many) is used in Korean. It reveals that the concept of ‘age’ is perceived differently in Korean and Chinese―quantitatively in Korean and numerically in Chinese―leading to differences in image schemas and adjective selection in both languages.