"돈" 관련 한국어 관용 표현의 의미와 분포 -한국어 어휘 교육의 관점을 지향하며-

김정남 ( Jungnam Kim ) 숙명여자대학교 한국어문화연구소 2016 한국어와 문화 Vol.19 No.-

본고에서는 외국어로서의 한국어 어휘 교육의 관점에서도 중요성이 큰 ``돈``이라는 단어가 포함된 한국어 관용 표현들을 살펴보았다. 한국어에서 ``돈``과 관련한 여러 가지 표현들을 보면 일반 사물 명사들과는 다른 연어 관계를 보여 주며, 비유적인 의미가 드러나는 경우도 많다. 본고에서는 ``관용 표현``이라는 개념을 폭넓게 적용하여 이러한 돈 관련 연어들과 복합어들을 두루 살펴보았다. 본고에서 제시한 예는 돈의 ``유입``과 관련한 예가 모두 27개, 돈의 유출과 관련한 예가 모두 25개로 총 52개이다. 아울러 본고에서 제시한 ``돈``이 포함된 복합어들은 모두 28개이다. 이러한 예들이 그동안 『표준국어대사전』이나 『관용어 사전』들에서도 주목되지 못하였고 대부분의 관용어 연구들에서도 거론되지 않았기에 본고에서는 이들을 한데 모아 그 의미와 분포를 제시하였다는 데서 의의를 갖는다. In this paper I examined several customary expressions including the Korean word don (money), which is very important in teaching vocabulary for the KFL learners. In the Korean language many expressions concerned with don(money) reveal very different aspects from other general nouns. Most of them represent particular collocations, and they contain metaphoric meanings. We use the term "customary expressions" with a broad meaning. In this paper a total of 52 items are presented. Twenty-seven items among them are expressions that represent the meaning of money incoming, and the other 25 items reveal the sense of money outgoing. Furthermore I listed 28 items of compound words. Little attention has been given to these expressions in previous literature. The significance of this paper is that it addresses these expressions and their usage.

A Comparison of Random-Groups Design and Common-Item Design in IRT Equating : A Monte Carlo Study

Dong-In Kim(김동인),Guemin Lee(이규민),Jungnam Kim(김정남) 연세대학교 교육연구소 2015 미래교육학연구 Vol.28 No.2

서로 다른 검사 형에서 얻어진 점수를 호환하여 사용하기 위해서는 두 검사 형을 같은 점수 척도 상에 올려야 하고, 이를 위해 대부분의 검사 기관에서 사용되고 있는 방법은 공통문항이나 무선적으로 동등한 피험자를 이용하는 방법이다. 두 검사 형 사이에 공통문항은 하나의 검사 형에서 나온 점수를 다른 검사 형의 점수로 변환하는 과정에 사용된다. 반면, 무선적으로 동등한 피험자를 이용하는 디자인에서는 서로 다른 검사 형이 무선할당 방법을 활용하여 생성된 피험자 집단에 서로 다른 검사 형이 시행된다. 능력면에서 동등한 피험자 집단에 시행되었기 때문에, 두 검사 형 사이의 검사 점수 비교는 더 이상의 조작 없이 성취될수 있다. 이 연구의 주요 목적은 동등화를 위한 집단의 다양한 수준의 동등성과, 표본크기,그리고 공통문항 수의 효과를 시뮬레이션 기법을 활용하여 탐색하는 것이다. 연구 결과, 두방법 중에 공통문항을 이용한 방법이 무선적으로 동등한 피험자를 이용한 디자인에 비해 선호될 수 있음을 확인할 수 있었다. 같은 표본크기를 사용할 경우, 무선적으로 동등한 피험자를 활용한 동등화 오차가 공통문항 디자인을 활용한 방법의 동등화 오차보다 크게 나타났다. 그리고 충분한 공통문항을 사용한 경우, 공통문항 방법이 무선적으로 동등한 피험자를 이용한 동등화 방법보다 작은 동등화 오차를 산출하였다. Two ways of item response theory(IRT) equating using either common items or randomly equivalent examinees have been commonly used by most testing institutes to put test forms on the same scale to achieve score comparability. The common items between two test forms are used to transform scores from one from to an alternative form. For the random groups design, alternative test forms are administered to two groups of examinees using random assignment techniques and the two examinee groups are considered as equivalent in ability and other characteristics. Consequently, score comparability between test forms can be accomplished without further any manipulation. The primary purpose of the present study is to compare the results of two equating designs with different degrees of equivalency between equating groups, sample sizes, and the numbers of the common items using simulation techniques. Based on the results of this study, it is suggested that if there are common items between equating forms under the random-groups design, equating methods based on the common-items could be preferred. Given the same sample size, equating errors from the randomly equivalent examinees were larger than were those from the common-items design. With sufficient common items, the common-item method produced smaller equating errors than did the equating with randomly-groups design.

한국어 부사 ‘작작’의 의미와 분포

( Ma Xin ),김정남 ( Kim Jungnam ) 한국외국어대학교 언어연구소 2020 언어와 언어학 Vol.0 No.87

This study is about the etymological meaning of jagjag and its characteristics of pragmatics through actual examples from the corpus. Adverb jagjag in modern Korean originated from jyagjyag of the 15th century. It is formed by the duplication of the stem jag- of the adjective jagda. Hence, the meaning of jagjag was interpreted literally until the 19th century where jagjag was a kind of modal adverb. However, since the period of modern Korean, jagjag has become a kind of prohibitive adverb and has functioned as a negative command. In this article, we revealed that jagjag co-occurs with negative-meaning verbs or where at least the object or modifier of those verbs have negative meanings, through actual and specific examples from the corpora. We analyzed the mood of co-occurring verbs and their final endings. We found that most of the mood is plain speech-level, and most final endings are imperative. Ironically, the honorific endings strengthen threatening of the listeners’ face, and the adverbs jom, jebal, and jebal jom help reduce the feature of FTA (Face Threatening Act) in a jagjag structure.

드라마 자료를 활용한 한국어 요청 전략 교육 연구 -학습 목적 변인에 따른 차별화를 중심으로-

정혜령 ( Zheng Huiling ),김정남 ( Kim Jungnam ) 한국텍스트언어학회 2021 텍스트언어학 Vol.51 No.-

This paper aims to examine the various patterns of request strategies by native Korean speakers from the script of dramas and present the main strategy patterns for Korean learners. As known widely, Korean learners need to use request speech act in many different situations and to many people. Assuming that certain groups of learners will be more likely to use specific discourse strategies, we came to think that it would be good to teach request dialogue differently depending on their learning purposes. First off, we have divided the request strategies into eight subtypes. And then, we extracted request speech acts from the drama discourse and analyzed which request strategy was used for the speech acts. Moreover, we have statistically examined which groups frequently used which discourse strategies. This result will be helpful as request speech act education contents for learners depending on the learning purpose.(Kyung Hee University)

한중 상징어 대조 연구

王元媛(WANG YUAN YUAN),김정남(Kim Jungnam) 한국언어문학회 2009 한국언어문학 Vol.71 No.-

This paper aims to present the results of a contrastive-linguistic research on Korean & Chinese symbolic words and provide useful fundamental learning materials for both Korean learners of Chinese language & Chinese learners of Korean language. Although symbolic words can be classified by morphology and semantics respectively, this paper classifies symbolic words in categories meaning such as those related to people, animals, objects, and natural phenomena. For those Korean and Chinese language learners who wish to use symbolic words creatively rather than receptively, the classification scheme will not only help them in remembering the words but also in finding precise symbolic words. This study further classifies Korean and Chinese symbolic words in the semantic categories into mimetic and onomatopoeic words, presents a representative list of potential responses, and examines the semantic and formal characteristics. In the case of Korean language, the words with differences of nuance due to their vowel, exist in synonymous symbolic words. Thus, in making the list table of symbolic words in this study, we arranged the words to be separated by their vowel. That is, light vowel symbolic words and dull vowel ones are placed independently at each column. In contrast, the Chinese language also has special characteristics in its phonetic forms but because its characters form the basic units of meaning(logographic morphemic), it does not have the phonetic symbolism in the sense that the Korean language does in its existence of nuances. However, Chinese mimetic words reveal the characteristic of verbs or adjectives with similar meaning or iteration forms replacing each other as well as showing repetitive patterns such as ABAB or AABB. Chinese Onomatopoeic words also contain repetitions but unlike mimetic words, many of them are one-syllable words and mostly have reiterations in the form of AA. Concrete conditions may be different, but reiterations are common to both the Korean and Chinese languages. In morphological terms, adverbial iteration forms occur after the verb or adjective in Chinese mimetic words, and the verb or adjective and the forms of iteration have a solid cohesion so that they are recognized as one unit. On the other hand, Korean symbolic words have the special characteristic of forming new words by optionally affixing ‘ -하다, -거리다, -대다’ to symbolic adverbial roots.

한국어교육 분야에서의 부사격 조사 ‘에’와 ‘에서’ 관련 연구 동향 분석

진정(Chen, Zheng),김정남(Kim, Jungnam) 중앙어문학회 2023 語文論集 Vol.94 No.-

한.중 의성어와 의태어의 형태론적 대조 연구

王元援(Wang yuan yuan),김정남(Kim Jungnam) 한국언어문학회 2010 한국언어문학 Vol.73 No.-

This paper aims to provide the basic teaching materials for both Korean & Chinese vocabulary education by contrasting and presenting the distinctive properties of Korean & Chinese's onomatopoeic words & mimetic words(Q&M words). In order to achieve this goal, it first lists all of the one-syllable Q&M words and arranges the representative examples of two-, three-, and four-syllable O&M words. In the case of two-syllable Korean O&M words, by separating them into light vowel O&M words and dull vowel ones independently in each column, I emphasized the peculiarity of Korean O&M words in its phonetic symbolism One-syllable O&M words are represented by A The syllable structure of A is very simple; that is, most 'As' lack the last consonant syllable, and even when there is one, it is almost 'ㄱ(k)' or ,‘ㅇ(n)'. Two-syllables Q&M words are of two types. One is consisted of repetition of the same syllable A, and the other is divided further into two types. One is simple AB structure, and the other is a complex one that is constructed by combining A and B. The most distinctive point, differently from A, AA is preceded by suffix '-하다, -거리다, -대다'. Three-syllable O&M words also come in two types. They are AAB and ABB. The former is all simple words, but the latter is divided differently in Korean and in Chinese. In Korean, ABB is classified into two types, i.e. simple words and complex words formed from AB. In Chinese, there are three types of ABBs, that is, simple type, 'A+BB' type. and 'AB+B' type. The most typical type of four-syllable O&M words is the ABCC type. This is the reiteration type, of course. Although this is a common type in Korean and Chinese, in Chinese there are cases where the '有' or '里' or `一` often occur in certain environments. And if the word that rooms action or the unit of calculation is filled in the place of 'X' in the '-X-X' and '-X- Y', we can interpret it as having the meaning of repeating, duration or emphasis.

KHU-SentiwordNet: 형식형태소를 결합한 한국어 감성사전 개발

권오병(Kwon, Ohbyung),김정남(Kim, Jungnam),조현용(Cho, Hyun Yong),홍경아(Hong, Kyung Ah),한재민(Han, Jae Min),정장훈,김영운(Kim, Yeoung Woon),최석재(Choi Sukjae) 한국IT서비스학회 2019 한국IT서비스학회 학술대회 논문집 Vol.2019 No.2

빅데이터 분석에 있어 감성사전은 감성분석의 정확도를 제고하는 데 매우 중요한 요소이다. 그러나 감성사전을 구축할 때 긍, 부정 판단에는 주관적인 측면이 들어갈 수밖에 없다. 그럼에도 그동안 감성사전은 일반인의 판단에 근거한 경우가 많아. 한국어 전문가의 판단이 필요했다. 이에 빅데이터 분석 영역 전문가와 한국어 분야 전문가의 체계적 판정을 통해서 비교적 객관적인 긍정 부정값을 도출해 내야 한다. 더욱이 기존에는 실질형태소에 치중되어 있어, 분석의 정확도에 한계가 있었다. 이에 본 연구의 목적은 실질형태소뿐 아니라, 형식형태소와 정도부사까지 망라한 최대의 한국어 감성사전을 경영 및 한국어 전문가 들에 의하여 구축한 방법을 제안하고 그 성과를 제시하는 것이다.

전하 저장형 메모리 어레이를 이용한 컨볼루션 인공 신경망 구현

최현석(Hyun-Seok Choi),김보람(Boram Kim),김정남(Jungnam Kim),박준(Joon Park),안지훈(Ji-Hoon Ahn),김윤(Yoon Kim) 대한전자공학회 2020 대한전자공학회 학술대회 Vol.2020 No.8

LNG 터미널의 데이터 실시간 데이터 예측 알고리즘 개발

이상호(Sangho Lee),이철진(Chul-jin Lee),김정남(Jungnam Kim),한종훈(Chonghun Han) 한국가스학회 2011 한국가스학회 학술대회논문집 Vol.2011 No.11