http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
On the Causes of Passives in English, Korean and Chinese from a Corpus-Based Approach
Taesun Park(박태선) 언어과학회 2020 언어과학연구 Vol.0 No.93
This study examines the factors of passive voice in Korean, English, and Chinese from authentic data through the use of a corpus. The corpora used in this study are NIKLC for Korean, BNC for English, and ECPC for Chinese. The result shows that in English, topicality is the highest factor, connectedness is the second factor, and circumstances dependency is the third factor. In Korean, topicality is the highest factor, circumstances dependency is the second factor and connectedness is the third factor. In Chinese, affectedness is the highest factor, connectedness is the second factor, and topicality is the third factor. Agent omission phenomenon is a common characteristic in the three languages. Circumstances dependency, which is characteristic of Korean passive, is the lowest in English. Though the corpora used in this study may not be completely perfect in their content, this research has its value in the fact that it tries to compare the three languages through the use of a corpus.
( Taesun Kim ) 한국감성과학회 2016 감성과학 Vol.19 No.2
Inclusive design is increasingly gaining attention, as some people find using products difficult after becoming physically impaired, despite daily use. However, making inclusive products is a challenge for designers or companies, as a lack of knowledge and tools stems their low involvement in it. Developing inclusive design tools is thus needed. This study developed criteria to assess upper extremity capabilities corresponding to specific daily activities. A questionnaire survey was conducted among 58 physiatrists and orthopedists. Non-parametric statistics were employed and medians were adopted as representative scores in the assessment criteria based on normality and reliability test results, non-normal data, and strong reliability of respondents in ranking. Consequently, an assessment tool was developed with 14 criteria (divided into range of motion and strength) and capability scores between 0 and 100, which discerned the moderately impaired from the severely disabled and fully capable. Since the doctors agreed to adopt the criteria but assign numeric values, especially for mild impairments, their capability assessment perception was likely influenced by dichotomy. To compensate for these deficits, qualitative or ergonomic approaches are considered simultaneously.