Objectives The purpose of this study is to examine the corresponding types of Korean and Chinese antonyms, which were based on the list of antonyms for Korean language learning derived through literature research methods. Methods To this end, a total of 77 pairs of advanced Korean antonyms were extracted based on the list of antonyms for Korean language education provided by the Korean Language Teaching and Learning Center of the National Language Institute of Korea. Next, the list of advanced Korean antonyms for Korean learning was divided into 31 pairs of complementary antonyms, 18 pairs of gradable antonyms, and 28 pairs of relational antonyms. Results As a result of a comparative analysis of the Korean and Chinese antonyms, focusing on the list of antonyms for Korean language learning, it was found that Korean complementary antonyms had a different correspondence type from Chinese complementary antonyms due to synonymity, polysemy, morphological identification, semantic identification, and vocabulary vacancies. Korean gradable antonyms differed in correspondence from Chinese gradable antonyms due to synonymity, polysemy, and morphological identification. Korean relational antonyms differed in correspondence with Chinese relational antonyms due to synonymity, polysemy, morphological identification, semantic identification, and vocabulary vacancies. Conclusions The corresponding types of Korean and Chinese antonyms were presented as follows. First, synonymity leads to distinctions between Korean and Chinese antonyms. Second, polysemy leads to distinctions. Third, Morphological identification causes distinctions. Fourth, semantic identification causes distinctions. Fifth, vocabulary vacancies cause distinctions between Korean and Chinese antonyms.
A Fri, study studied this question.