http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
영어와 한국어의 술어적 소유 구문 비교 연구 : 영ㆍ한 번역 교육에서의 활용 방안
박기성(Park Ki-Seong) 새한영어영문학회 2004 새한영어영문학 Vol.46 No.3
The purpose of this study is to compare the use and semantics of predicative possession constructions in English and Korean by means of source event schemas proposed by Heine(1997) and other semantic notions such as alienable vs. inalienable possession and possession vs. ownership.<br/> Through text analysis, it has been shown that the primary source schema in English is Action, willie the primary schema in Korean is Existence, especially Goal, and that Korean adopts more source schemas than English in expressing predicative possession. English possessive verbs used for Action Schema are have, get, take. Ninety percent of English sentences with one of the three English verbs are translated into Korean sentences with Existence Schema, when they express possessive relations. On the other hand, English sentences with one of the verbs are translated with Korean dynamic verbs, when they express non-possessive states of affairs.
박기성(Ki-Seong Park) 한국중원언어학회 2011 언어학연구 Vol.0 No.19
Studies in Linguistics 19, 53-70. This paper aims to investigate the semantics and pragmatics of relative word order choice of adverbial clauses. The following claims are made. First, I will follow Haegeman’s classification of adverbial clauses into central vs. peripheral adverbial clauses and argue that the classification could be explained with the notion of ad-core vs. ad-clause subordination in Role and Reference Grammar. Second, I will show the positional patterns of conditional, temporal, causal adverbial clauses, and argue that they mostly follow the principle of iconicity, except for the causal clauses. Third, I will claim that the word orderings of adverbial clauses are affected by information structures and the functioning of circumstantial framework. The pragmatic factors, however, are argued to be constrained by the thematic progression such as topical continuity.
박기성 ( Ki Seong Park ) 한국노동경제학회 2012 勞動經濟論集 Vol.35 No.3
맡고 있는 일에 문제가 발생했을 때 문제의 원인을 아는 정도로 분석성을 측정하고, 회사의 전체 업무를 이해하는 정도로 포괄성을 측정하고, 본인의 일에 예외적인 상황이 발생하는 정도로 유연성을 측정한다. 기업의 고정효과 또는 임의효과와 연령, 근속, 직위 직급 등 전통적인 인적자본 변수들을 통제한 후 이 특성들은 통계적으로 유의하게 임금을 높인다. 맡고 있는 일에 문제가 발생할 때 문제의 원인을 거의 모르는 자보다 대부분 정확히 아는 자가 임금이 5.2% 높다. 맡고 있는 팀(부서)의 업무만을 어느 정도 이해하고 있는 자보다 회사의 전반적인 업무를 이해하고 있는 자가 임금이 2.52% 높다. 일상적이고 반복적인 일을 하는 자보다 하나하나가 새로운 일을 하는 자가 임금이 2.98% 높다. We measure a worker`s analyzability by how correctly he grasps its causes when a problem occurs, comprehensiveness by how much he understand the overall process of his firm, and flexibility by how frequently unusual situations occur at his job. After controling firm-specific fixed of fandom effects, his age, tenure, position, and rank, the characteristics increase a worker`s wage. A worker who grasps correctly the causes of problem is paid more by 5.2% than a worker who scarcely does. A worker who understands the overall process of his firm is paid more by 2.52% than a worker who understands roughly the process of his team or department. A worker whose job is mew one by one is paid more by 2.98% than a worker whose job is routine and repetitive.
박기성 ( Ki Seong Park ),변양규 ( Yanggyu Byun ) 한국노동경제학회 2017 勞動經濟論集 Vol.40 No.3
우리는 현행 복지제도의 노동공급 역유인 효과를 방지·완화하기 위하여 4인 가구 기준 연소득 5,000만 원 이하 가구에 대해 소득부족액을 기준으로 보조금을 지원하는 한국형 음소득세인 안심소득제(safety income system)를 제안한다. 이 제도 하에서는 노동공급 증가로 국내총생산이 상승하고, 저소득가구의 처분가능소득 증대로 소득격차도 완화될 수 있다. 가계동향조사 미시자료를 사용하여 검증한 결과 안심소득제의 소득격차 완화 정도는 기존제도 및 기본소득제에 비해 월등한 것으로 나타났다. To prevent the disincentive of labor supply under the current welfare system, we suggest the safety income system, a Korean version of negative income tax. Under the proposed system, for example, a household with four members whose annual income is less than 50 million wons will get financial support from the government. Under the safety income system, labor supply increases and so does the gross domestic product. The disposable income of low-income households increases, which alleviates the income gap among households. Analyzing the Household Income and Expenditure Survey data, we show that under the safety income system the disposable income differentials among households are reduced much more than under the current welfare system or under the universal basic income system.