현대중국어 초점표기사 단일초점문과 이중초점문 비교

윤유정 중국문화연구학회 2023 중국문화연구 Vol.- No.59

In this paper, sentence in which two focus appear, indicated by the focus markers ‘shi(是)’, ‘lian(連)’, and ‘shi(是)~de(的)’ is named ‘Dual Focus Sentence’, and analyze the feature of each focus in the single focus sentence and dual focus sentence, after that, analyze the strength of the two focus in the dual focus sentence. The results of the analysis are as follows: First, the focus indicated by ‘shi’ is the contrastive focus, the focus indicated by ‘lian’ is the topical focus, and the focus indicated by ‘shi~de’ is the identificational focus. Second, the syntactic form of a dual focus sentence is ① ‘shi’ + ‘shi~de’, ② ‘shi’ + ‘lian’, ③ ‘lian’ + ‘shi~de’. The order of focus in each dual focus sentence is ‘contrastive focus + identificational focus’ in form①, ‘contrastive focus + topical focus’ in form②, and ‘topical focus + identificational focus’ in form③. Third, the strength of each focus in dual focus sentence is not determined by the strength or order of appearance of the focus marker itself, but by various factors such as the syntactic position of each focus, the semantic relationship between the two focuses, and the discourse context. 본고는 초점표기사 ‘是’, ‘連’, ‘是~的’가 표시하는 초점이 단문에 두 개 출현한 것을 이중초점문이라고 명명하고, 단일초점문과 이중초점문 속 각 초점의 성질을 분석한 후 이중초점문 속 두 초점의 강도를 분석한다. 분석의 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, ‘是’가 표시하는 초점은 대조초점이고, ‘連’이 표시하는 초점은 화제초점이며, ‘是~的’가 표시하는 초점은 확인초점이다. 둘째, 이중초점문의 통사 격식은 ① ‘是’ + ‘是~的’, ② ‘是’ + ‘連’, ③ ‘連’ + ‘是~的’의 세 가지이다. 각 이중초점문 속 초점의 배열 순서는 격식①은 ‘대조초점+확인초점’이고, 격식②는 ‘대조초점+화제초점’이며, 격식③은 ‘화제초점+확인초점’이다. 셋째, 이중초점문 속 각 초점의 강도는 초점표기사 자체의 강약이나 출현 순서에 의해 결정되는 것이 아니라, 각 초점의 통사 위치, 두 초점 사이의 의미관계 및 담화맥락 등 여러 요인에 의해 결정된다.

중국어 다항보어문 속 목적어와 보어의 순서에 나타난 도상성 연구

윤유정 중앙대학교 외국학연구소 2018 외국학연구 Vol.- No.44

This article analyzes the primary word order and the secondary word order of object and complement in Chinese multiple complements sentences. The primary word order of a multiple complements sentence in which the object appears after the predicate can be divided into ‘V+C1+O+C2’ and ‘V+C1+C2+O’. At this time, the position of the object is determined according to the characteristics of the object (place name, common noun, pronoun) and the type and characteristics of the complement. The C1 that appears immediately after the predicate is mainly the resultative complement, the possibility complement and the direction complement. The C2 which is distant from the predicate is the quantity complement. ‘Iconicity of proximity’, ‘relative adjacency’ and ‘adjacency of similar elements’ are used to interpret the word order between complements. The location of the object in the multiple complements sentence is described using the concept of ‘identifiability’. The secondary word order of the multiple complements sentence is mainly a case where a prepositional phrase complement appears. In this case, the object is shifted before the predicate by using the ‘ba/jiang’ to construct a topic sentence. If the prepositional phrase complement appears together with the resultative complement, the prepositional phrase complement appears after the resultative complement. If a prepositional phrase complement appears with a direction complement which is ‘lai, qu’, the prepositional phrase complement appears before the direction complement. If a prepositional phrase complement appears with the direction complement which is ‘hui, kai, qi’, the prepositional phrase complement appears after the direction complement. This order reflects ‘Sequential iconicity’. When a prepositional phrase complement appears with a quantity complement, the prepositional phrase complement represents the place and the quantity complement represents the time. In general, conceptually close to the verb is a place rather than a time, so the prepositional phrase complement appears before the quantity complement. This order reflects ‘Iconicity of proximity’.

현대중국어 분열문 및 준분열문

윤유정 중앙대학교 외국학연구소 2019 외국학연구 Vol.- No.48

This paper confirms the scope of Cleft sentence and Pseudo-cleft sentence in Modern Chinese, and analyzes the pragmatic functions of two structures in context. The contents and results of the research are as follows: First, Cleft sentence only includes “Shi……de1” which indicates the past, and “shi……de2” which indicates the assertion. If the element before the “shi” is not from the NP node, if “de” appears before the object in the transitive sentence, if change the meaning after changing of position of front and back components of “shi”, in these cases, all are included in the cleft sentence. However, if numerals or demonstratives appears after “shi”, it is not included in the cleft sentence. Second, the pseudo-cleft sentence can be formed as “…(zuo)deshi…”, and not only the noun component but also the verb’s component can appear after “shi” as focus. If head appears after “de” or if the noun component after “shi” is indefinite, it is not included in the pseudo-cleft sentence. Third, “shi” is the focus marker in the cleft sentence which generally emphasizes the right component, but occasionally emphasizes the left component of “shi” in the contrastive sentences. If focus appears after “shi” and at the same time object appears after “de”, “shi” indicates the primary focus and “de” indicates the secondary focus. Thus “de” also sometimes functions as a focus marker. Fourth, the information structure of the cleft sentence is “presupposition+focus” or “focus+presupposition”. It functions to present or contrast the focus element as important information about the already mentioned information in the precedent sentence. However, the pseudo-cleft sentences all have a “presupposition+focus” structure, and focus is placed in the end of sentence, which leads to a new topic to be described in the following sentence.

텍스트마이닝을 활용한 한⋅중 ‘Studying’ 프레임 문화요소 비교 연구

윤유정 중국문화연구학회 2022 중국문화연구 Vol.- No.55

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the similarities and differences between Korean and Chinese about the core and non-core elements set in the “Studying” frame of FrameNet based on Frame Semantics. FrameNet divides the core elements of “Studying” into Institution, Student, Subject and Teacher, and divides the non-core into Co-Participant, Participant, Depictive, Duration, Explanation, Intended Academic Credit, Level, Manner, Place and Time. This paper compares and analyzes the similarities and differences of cultural elements in Korean and Chinese with respect to factors excluding Period, Description and Time. This paper uses text mining based on ‘Sejong Corpus’ in Korean and ‘Chinese Treebank 9.0’ in Chinese to analyze the core and non-core elements set in FrameNet’s “Studying” frame. The analysis results are as follows: Regarding ‘Institution’, both Korean and Chinese had something in common that ‘Academy’, a private education institution, was ranked at the top in addition to regular educational institutions. Regarding ‘Students’, both Korean and Chinese have a common point that education for children is important. However, there is a difference that ‘Dai Han’, ‘Working Student’ is ranked at the top in Korean and ‘Foreign Student’, ‘Engineer’ in Chinese. Regarding the ‘Subject’, both Korean and Chinese have something in common that ‘English and Computer’ are ranked at the top, placing importance on learning this subject. However, in Korean, foreign languages such as ‘Chinese, French’ and ‘Arithmetic, Mathematics’ subjects are ranked at the top, but in Chinese, ‘French’ is ranked at the top as a foreign language, and subjects related to ‘Math’ do not appear at the top. There was no significant difference in vocabulary referring to teachers in both Korean and Chinese regarding ‘Teacher’. However, it can be seen that China tends to strictly distinguish positions compared to Korea. It is a morpheme related to ‘Teacher’, and there is a difference between ‘mother-in-law’ appearing in Korean and ‘parents’ appearing in Chinese. Regarding the ‘Intended Academic Credit’, both Korea and China have something in common that is closely related to ‘enter school’ or ‘employment’. In addition, it is noteworthy that the ‘revolution’ emerged as an academic intention in Chinese. The place where education was conducted in both Korean and Chinese about ‘Place’ generally had something in common that it was a ‘classrooms’. In addition, there is a difference in that ‘Temple’ reflecting the pre-2000s era appears in Korean, and ‘Juvie, factory and office’ appear as places in Chinese. 본고는 틀의미론(Frame Semantics)을 기반으로 한 프레임넷(FrameNet)의 ‘Studying’ 프레임에서 설정한 핵심요소와 비핵심요소에 대해 한국어와 중국어 사이의 공통점과 차이점에 대해 분석하는 것을 연구목적으로 한다. 프레임넷은 ‘Stuyding’의 핵심요소(core)를 기관(Institution), 학생(Student), 과목(Subject), 교사(Teacher)로 구분하고, 비핵심요소(non-core)를 공동참여자(Co-participant), 묘사Depictive, 기간Duration, 설명Explanation, 학업의도Intended academic credit, 수준Level, 방식manner, 장소Place, 시간Time로 구분하고 있다. 본고는 이 중 기간, 설명, 시간을 제외한 요소들에 대해 한국어와 중국어에 나타난 문화요소의 공통점과 차이점을 비교 분석한다. 본고는 한국어는 ‘세종코퍼스’를, 중국어는 ‘chinese Treebank 9.0’을 기반으로 텍스트마이닝을 활용하여 프레임넷의 ‘Studying’ 프레임에서 설정한 핵심요소와 비핵심요소를 분석한다. 분석 결과는 다음과 같다. 1. ‘기관’에 대해 한국어와 중국어 모두 정규 교육 기관 이외에 사교육 기관인 ‘학원’이 상위에 랭크되어 있다는 공통점이 있었다. 따라서 한국과 중국 모두 사교육이 주요한 교육 기관 중 하나임을 알 수 있다. 2. ‘학생’에 대해 한국어와 중국어 모두 ‘학생, 제자’ 이외에 ‘아이, 어린이’ 등의 어휘가 상위에 랭크되어 있어 연령이 낮은 아이나 자녀에 대한 교육이 중시된다는 공통점이 있다. 그러나 한국어에는 ‘따이한, 고학생’이, 중국어에는 ‘유학생, 엔지니어’가 상위에 랭크되어 있다는 차이점이 있다. 3. ‘과목’에 대해 한국어와 중국어 모두 ‘영어, 컴퓨터’가 상위에 랭크되어 이 과목에 대한 학습을 중시한다는 공통점이 있다. 그러나 한국어에서는 ‘중국어, 불어’와 같은 외국어 및 ‘산수, 수학’ 과목이 상위에 랭크되어 있으나, 중국어에서는 ‘불어’가 외국어로서 상위에 랭크되어 있고, ‘수학’과 관련된 과목은 상위 순위에 출현하지 않는다는 차이점이 있다. 4. ‘교사’에 대해 한국어와 중국어 모두 교사를 지칭하는 어휘에 큰 차이가 없었다. 그러나 중국어에서는 직위를 나타내는 ‘副’가 추가된 어휘가 상위에 랭크되어 있어 중국에서는 한국에 비해 직책을 엄격히 구분하는 경향이 있음을 알 수 있다. 특기할 점은, ‘교사’과 관련된 형태소로 한국어에서는 ‘시어머니’가 출현하고, 중국어에서는 ‘부모’가 출현한다는 차이점이 있다. 5. ‘공동참여자’에 대해 한국어와 중국어 모두 ‘부모’나 ‘엄마’가 주요 공동참여자라는 공통점이 있다. 6. ‘묘사’에 대해 한국과 중국 모두 ‘열심히, 힘쓰, 스스로’ 등 학습 과정에서 보이는 상태가 비슷했다. 그러나 중국어에서는 ‘천천히(慢儿慢儿)’가 출현하지만, 한국어에서는 이에 대응하는 어휘가 출현하지 않았다. 7. ‘학업의도’에 대해 한국과 중국 모두 대체로 ‘진학’이나 ‘취업’과 밀접히 연관된다는 공통점이 있다. 이외에 중국어에서는 ‘혁명(革命)’이 학업 의도로 출현한 점이 특기할 만하다. 8. ‘수준’에 대해 한국어에서는 ‘초급, 중급, 우수’ 등 교육 수준을 표시하는 어휘와 자주 함께 출현하지만, 중국어에서는 ‘기초(基础), master’ 이외 어휘는 출현하지 않는다는 차이가 있다. 9. ‘방식’에 대해 한국어와 중국어 모두 공부 방식이 대체로 ‘모방, 암기, 연습’이라는 공통점이 있다. 10. ‘장소’에 대해 한국어와 중국어 모두 교육이 수행 ...

한국인 중국어 문장 부호 사용 및 인식 실태 조사 분석

윤유정 한국중어중문학회 2016 한국중어중문학회 학술대회 자료집 Vol.2016 No.11

음식 배달 라이더 주행 패턴에 따른 이륜차 대기오염 배출량 분석

윤유정,신현주,조은솔,이건우,오철 한국ITS학회 2023 한국ITS학회 학술대회 Vol.2023 No.11

덕은리버워크, 고양 덕은지구 업무 4BL 지식산업센터 신축공사

윤유정,전윤진,석민정 한국건축시공학회 2022 건축시공 Vol.22 No.3

Annual Rehabilitation Costs Estimation for a Bridge Network

윤유정,Makarand Hastak 대한토목학회 2017 KSCE JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Vol.21 No.1

The objective of this paper is to present an integrated multi-year rehabilitation planning model (IMRPM) for a bridge network. A multi-year capital program can provide an explicit, steady vision for financial and expenditure strategies as well as improve the efficiency of the allocation of limited resources. Estimating the precise annual rehabilitation needs for sound bridge management is essential to achieving the goals of a multi-year capital program; however, the current rehabilitation planning techniques tend to underestimate the annual rehabilitation costs by overlooking the potential rehabilitation needs which can arise by delaying of Maintenance/Repair (M/R) projects due to insufficient annual funding. The presented model integrates a multi-year rehabilitation capital program into an M/R program within the same multi-year period. The model engages a genetic algorithm for a project-level analysis process to identify M/R and rehabilitation projects over a defined multi-year analysis period (e.g., three, five, or ten years) for each M/R program and rehabilitation program. As a result of this process, the annual rehabilitation costs during a multi-year period initially can be estimated. Then, the initial annual rehabilitation costs can be finalized by including newly-identified rehabilitation needs, which are developed through the annual reanalysis process resulting from the delay of M/R projects in prior years. The annual reanalysis process considers the concept of time floats for M/R projects. The presented model is expected to be useful to efficiently control delayed M/R projects and to provide more reliable estimation for annual rehabilitation needs.

현대중국어에서 ‘得’자의 어법화 현상 고찰

윤유정 중국어문학연구회 2006 중국어문학논집 Vol.0 No.41

현대중국어 구어에서 '來'와 '去'의 어법화

윤유정 중국어문학연구회 2006 중국어문학논집 Vol.0 No.36