http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 白知永(Peck, Jee-young) (검색결과 4 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
『孟子章句·梁惠王』注文의 于/於교체·탈락 현상에 반영된 문법 변화의 기제
白知永(Peck, Jee-young) 중국어문학연구회 2013 중국어문학논집 Vol.0 No.78
This study explores mechanisms for syntactic changes through analyzing YU elision phenomena from Commentaries on Mencius. Zhao Qi, the commentator of the Eastern Han dynasty, elided many numbers of the so-called universal preposition YU, while annotating the original texts of Mencius, written in pre Qin period. Such YU-elision phenomena reflect mechanisms which motivated the syntactic structure of Old Chinese to change. Two types of mechanisms, economy constraint and faithfulness constraint, have been in competing relation and motivated syntactic structure of Chinese to have undergone changes historically.
-
-
朱美英(Zhu Mei Ying),白知永(Peck Jee Young) 중국문화연구학회 2016 중국문화연구 Vol.0 No.31
This work investigates if Chinese has a past tense as a grammatical category or not, and also what are the major linguistic methods to mark the notion of past in Chinese. We selected one of the most widely read Korean written novel and its Chinese translation in as a corpus for our comparative analysis. We extracted sentences which include ‘-었-’ or ‘-었었-’ from Korean data and their corresponding sentences in the Chinese data. Then for Chinese sentences, we annotated what methods each sentence uses to express the notion of past, among the eight types of methods which have been observed as a past tense marker by previous studies. These methods are zero marking, lexical expression, temporal adverb, mei+V, resultative phrase, aspect markers le/zhe/guo, V+de, and sentence final particles le2/laizhe. Then each marker was ranked according to their frequency: the most frequently used method is zero marking, followed by aspect markers+mei, then by resultative phrase. The least frequently used methods are ‘de’ to begin with, followed by temporal adverb and sentence final particle le2. Our statistics demonstrates different weight of each past marker in Chinese. Next, we classified each marker into three different types, namely, syntactic, lexical and pragmatic categories, and the ratio between these three categories is 42:19:39. This result indicates that Chinese sentences rely on grammatical method with 42% of weight, lexical method with 19% of weight and pragmatic method with 39% of weight when expressing the notion of past. Our statistics supports the hypothesis that Chinese does not have a grammatical category of Tense which includes Past as its subcategory. Furthermore, based on the statistics, this study also provides some useful suggestions for teaching and learning regarding how to express the notion of past when dealing with verbs denoting various aspectual properties in Chinese. The statistical analysis drawn from Korean-Chinese comparative corpus in this work sheds light on the study of Tense in Chinese as well as the study of pedagogy for Tense and Aspect of Chinese.
-
汉韩两语中同源词语义的对比研究 - 以汉语“前后“和“韩语“전후”为例
李京徽 ( Li¸ Jinghui ),白知永 ( Peck¸ Jeeyoung ) 한국중국언어학회 2020 중국언어연구 Vol.0 No.91
한국어의 한자어 중 중국어와 동원어 관계에 있으나, 두 언어간의 기의가 일치하지 않아서, 한국인들의 중국어 학습시 난점이 되고 번역 시 오류를 유발하는 동원어를 박쥐말이라고 한다(맹주억 2004). 방향사로 구성된 박쥐말 “전후”와 이에 상응하는 중국어 어휘인 “前后”는 맹주억(2004)의 박쥐말 의미 대조 4유형 중 중국어의 의미범주가 부분 중첩인 경우에 속한다. 본고는 모국어 부정전이로 인한 박쥐말의 오도 및 회피 오류를 줄이고, 중국어 교수자들의 동원어 어휘 교육에 도움이 되기 위하여, “前后”와 “전후” 간의 기의의 차이점을 전면적으로 분석하였다. 정성적으로는, 개념적 은유 이론 (Lakoff&Johnson 1980 등)에 근거하여, “前后”와 “전후”의 각종 의미들을 공간의미(근원영역)및 추상의미(목표영역), 즉 시간/총괄범위/논리관계/서면형식 의미로 분류하여 분석하였다. 정량적으로는, 각 의미항목들이 실제 언어사용에서 차지하는 분포를 살펴보기 위하여, 한국어 및 중국어 코퍼스를 사용하여 대량의 예문에 반영된 각 의미항목의 양적 분포를 통계하였다. 코퍼스 통계 분석의 결과, 중국어 및 한국어에서 용례가 거의 발견되지 않은 “前后”와 “전후”의 기의들은 박쥐말 유형 다이어그램 중 중첩되지 않는 부분과 일치하였다. This work provides a contrastive semantic analysis on two disyllabic spatial localizers ‘qian-hou’ (‘front-back’)and ‘jeon-hu’ (‘front-back’)that are Chinese-Korean cognate. Korean learners of Chinese face difficulty in the process of learning spatial localizer ‘qian-hou’, because Language Transfer may occur between the non-overlapping meanings of Korean and Chinese cognates, as discussed in Maeng (2004)’s study on Chinese-Korean cognates, termed as ‘false friends’, i.e., cognates which have the same pronunciation, but different polysemy. Based on Lakoff & Johnson (1980)’s cognitive approach to metaphor, we explore lexical-semantics of the polysemy of spatial localizers ‘qian-hou’ and ‘jeon-hu.’ Then, using the large-sized corpus, we analyze the distribution of the usage frequency of each semantic item that are expressed by each cognate and further study the semantic and syntactic characteristics of the usages of each meaning item. Our quantitative result of the corpus analysis confirms that there are particular meaning items that are only expressed by either ‘qian-hou’ or ‘jeon-hu.’ This study aims to reveal the difference and the similarity between the polysemy of the two cognates so that the instructors of Chinese can help Korean learners to properly learn and use ‘qian-hou’.
KCI연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
