RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기

    중국어 모어자의 한국어 문법 오류 연구 : 홍콩 학습자의 시제 오류 양상을 중심으로

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=T13711003

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
    • 오류접수
    인용문이 복사되었습니다.

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    In spite of some semantic and phonological similarities between the vocabulary of Korean and Chinese, it has been generally accepted that the two languages are significantly different from each other in terms of grammatical, particularly typological features. For this reason, only quite a few previous studies have focused on similarities between the grammars of the two languages.
    A number of studies on Korean writing errors, however, have showed that Chinese L1 of Korean language learners made grammatical errors significantly less frequently than the English L1 learners. According to previous studies conducted with various L1 groups, the error rate of Chinese L1 learners on the Korean tenses was relatively lower than that of English L1 learners. This is quite an unexpected finding, in the consideration of the fact that the past tense is realized by verbal conjugations mostly with inflectional affix in English, which is exactly the same with Korean, whereas time references can be expressed only through time phrases or adverbials (i.e. non-grammatical items) in Chinese.
    This study aims to examine whether Chinese L1 Korean language learners are able to easily acquire a good knowledge of Korean grammar, especially the past tense marker '-ess/ass-', and to find out the reason behind it if they really are. For such a purpose, an extensive analysis was conducted with Korean writings collected well over ten years (i.e. from 2002 to 2014) from Hong Kong students, most of whom had Cantonese (i.e. a dialect of Chinese) as L1.
    The analysis results showed that Hong Kong students of every level (i.e. elementary, intermediate and advanced Korean) made significantly less errors on the tense markers ('-ess/ass-' and '-kess-') and the word order, compared to other grammatical items, such as connective endings and case markers. This is generally consistent with the results of previous error-analysis works on Korean grammatical items for Chinese L1 Korean learners, especially done by Lee(2005).
    It is known that the Korean past tense marker '-ess/ass-' can be also used as an aspect marker to describe an action that has been completed or to express something as a lasting result of a past action. In these particular cases, the Korean past tense marker is quite similar to the Chinese particle 'le[了]' which can be used both as an aspect marker and an ending modal particle.
    In addition to that, it is worth mentioning that there are two syntactic similarities between Korean and Chinese. Firstly. the ending modal particles (including 'le') are being used in Chinese in a syntactically similar manner to the verbal conjugations with pre-final and final endings in Korean. Secondly, the position of time adverbials in Korean sentences is exactly the same with that of Chinese sentences. It is believed that these two syntactic similarities also help Chinese L1 learners be easily able to acquire the grammatical features of the Korean past tense marker.
    In this study, it was also demonstrated that the word order is quite similar each other in the two languages, except for the position of objects in sentences (i.e. [SOV] vs. [SVO]). The similarity of the word order also supports the fact that Chinese L1 learners have less difficulties learning the word order of Korean sentences.
    It has been well accepted that Chinese L1 English learners are not good at the past tense compared to other L1 groups including the Japanese L1. This was explained by the fact that Chinese has no verbal conjugations for tense, unlike other major languages. From this work, however, it was shown that syntactic similarities are no less important than morphological similarities when acquiring unfamiliar grammatical features of foreign languages, like past tense for Chinese L1 learners.
    For a long time, Korea and China has carried out personal and cultural exchanges. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that the horizontal (i.e. cultural) transmission of the two languages must have occurred in a considerable level. In this sense, it is natural that there exist some syntactic similarities between the two languages. The finding of this study is useful and important for those who teach the Korean language to Chinese L1 learners. It is because focusing on similarities with the target language will be far more efficient, rather than focusing on the differences, for a teacher to encourage his or her students to learn the language.
    번역하기

    In spite of some semantic and phonological similarities between the vocabulary of Korean and Chinese, it has been generally accepted that the two languages are significantly different from each other in terms of grammatical, particularly typological f...

    In spite of some semantic and phonological similarities between the vocabulary of Korean and Chinese, it has been generally accepted that the two languages are significantly different from each other in terms of grammatical, particularly typological features. For this reason, only quite a few previous studies have focused on similarities between the grammars of the two languages.
    A number of studies on Korean writing errors, however, have showed that Chinese L1 of Korean language learners made grammatical errors significantly less frequently than the English L1 learners. According to previous studies conducted with various L1 groups, the error rate of Chinese L1 learners on the Korean tenses was relatively lower than that of English L1 learners. This is quite an unexpected finding, in the consideration of the fact that the past tense is realized by verbal conjugations mostly with inflectional affix in English, which is exactly the same with Korean, whereas time references can be expressed only through time phrases or adverbials (i.e. non-grammatical items) in Chinese.
    This study aims to examine whether Chinese L1 Korean language learners are able to easily acquire a good knowledge of Korean grammar, especially the past tense marker '-ess/ass-', and to find out the reason behind it if they really are. For such a purpose, an extensive analysis was conducted with Korean writings collected well over ten years (i.e. from 2002 to 2014) from Hong Kong students, most of whom had Cantonese (i.e. a dialect of Chinese) as L1.
    The analysis results showed that Hong Kong students of every level (i.e. elementary, intermediate and advanced Korean) made significantly less errors on the tense markers ('-ess/ass-' and '-kess-') and the word order, compared to other grammatical items, such as connective endings and case markers. This is generally consistent with the results of previous error-analysis works on Korean grammatical items for Chinese L1 Korean learners, especially done by Lee(2005).
    It is known that the Korean past tense marker '-ess/ass-' can be also used as an aspect marker to describe an action that has been completed or to express something as a lasting result of a past action. In these particular cases, the Korean past tense marker is quite similar to the Chinese particle 'le[了]' which can be used both as an aspect marker and an ending modal particle.
    In addition to that, it is worth mentioning that there are two syntactic similarities between Korean and Chinese. Firstly. the ending modal particles (including 'le') are being used in Chinese in a syntactically similar manner to the verbal conjugations with pre-final and final endings in Korean. Secondly, the position of time adverbials in Korean sentences is exactly the same with that of Chinese sentences. It is believed that these two syntactic similarities also help Chinese L1 learners be easily able to acquire the grammatical features of the Korean past tense marker.
    In this study, it was also demonstrated that the word order is quite similar each other in the two languages, except for the position of objects in sentences (i.e. [SOV] vs. [SVO]). The similarity of the word order also supports the fact that Chinese L1 learners have less difficulties learning the word order of Korean sentences.
    It has been well accepted that Chinese L1 English learners are not good at the past tense compared to other L1 groups including the Japanese L1. This was explained by the fact that Chinese has no verbal conjugations for tense, unlike other major languages. From this work, however, it was shown that syntactic similarities are no less important than morphological similarities when acquiring unfamiliar grammatical features of foreign languages, like past tense for Chinese L1 learners.
    For a long time, Korea and China has carried out personal and cultural exchanges. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that the horizontal (i.e. cultural) transmission of the two languages must have occurred in a considerable level. In this sense, it is natural that there exist some syntactic similarities between the two languages. The finding of this study is useful and important for those who teach the Korean language to Chinese L1 learners. It is because focusing on similarities with the target language will be far more efficient, rather than focusing on the differences, for a teacher to encourage his or her students to learn the language.

    더보기

    목차 (Table of Contents)

    • 1. 서론 1
    • 1.1. 연구 목적 1
    • 1.2.선행 연구 검토 4
    • 1.3.연구 대상과 방법 13
    • 2. 홍콩 한국어 학습자의 문법 오류 분석 15
    • 1. 서론 1
    • 1.1. 연구 목적 1
    • 1.2.선행 연구 검토 4
    • 1.3.연구 대상과 방법 13
    • 2. 홍콩 한국어 학습자의 문법 오류 분석 15
    • 2.1. 오류 연구의 대상 및 방법 15
    • 2.2. 홍콩 학습자의 한국어 문법 범주에 대한 오류 분석 21
    • 2.3. 홍콩 초급 학습자의 오류 분석 26
    • 2.4. 홍콩 중급 학습자의 오류 분석 56
    • 2.5. 홍콩 고급 학습자의 오류 분석 69
    • 2.6. 홍콩 학습자와 범 언어권 학습자의 오류 양상 비교 80
    • 2.7. 중국어 모어 학습자와 타 언어권 학습자의 오류 양상 비교 83
    • 3. 한국어와 중국어의 문법적 관계성 88
    • 3.1. 한국어 선어말어미-었/았-에 대응하는 중국어의 문법표지 88
    • 3.2. 한국어와 중국어의 어순 비교 102
    • 3.3. 한국어와 중국어의 통사구조 비교 113
    • 4. 결론 118
    • 참고문헌 120
    • ABSTRACT 125
    더보기

    참고문헌 (Reference)

    1. 중국어 첫걸음, 왕선, 서울: 내외문학, , 1997

    2. /2009). 국어사개설, 이기문, 서울: 태학사, , 1972

    3. 국어학 – 분석 분류 생성, 김기혁, 박이정, 서울: 박이정, , 2001

    4. (한국어 학습자의) 오류 연구, 이정희, 박이정, 서울: 박이정, , 2003

    5. 한글‐중국어 병음 체계의 연구, 심소희, 한글 245: 161‐189, , 1991

    6. 한국어 학습자의 시제 오류 연구, 이정희, 이중언어학 18: 259‐277, , 2001

    7. 국어한자어발달의 언어사적 연구, 최상진, 어문연구 19: 424-437, , 1991

    8. 밀러 일본어의 기원. 김방한 번역, R. A, 서울: 민음사, , 1985

    9. 중국어와 한국어의 유형학적 비교, 엄익상, 한국중어중문학회, 中語中文學 33: 153‐184, , 2003

    10. 중국인 한국어 학습자의 오류 분석, 나은영, 새국어교육 72: 27-45, , 2006

    1. 중국어 첫걸음, 왕선, 서울: 내외문학, , 1997

    2. /2009). 국어사개설, 이기문, 서울: 태학사, , 1972

    3. 국어학 – 분석 분류 생성, 김기혁, 박이정, 서울: 박이정, , 2001

    4. (한국어 학습자의) 오류 연구, 이정희, 박이정, 서울: 박이정, , 2003

    5. 한글‐중국어 병음 체계의 연구, 심소희, 한글 245: 161‐189, , 1991

    6. 한국어 학습자의 시제 오류 연구, 이정희, 이중언어학 18: 259‐277, , 2001

    7. 국어한자어발달의 언어사적 연구, 최상진, 어문연구 19: 424-437, , 1991

    8. 밀러 일본어의 기원. 김방한 번역, R. A, 서울: 민음사, , 1985

    9. 중국어와 한국어의 유형학적 비교, 엄익상, 한국중어중문학회, 中語中文學 33: 153‐184, , 2003

    10. 중국인 한국어 학습자의 오류 분석, 나은영, 새국어교육 72: 27-45, , 2006

    11. 한국어와 중국어의 자음 대응 연구, 김지형, 경희대 박사학위 논문, , 1999

    12. 한국어 학습자의 조사와 어미 오류 양상, 박종호, 새국어교육 90: 315-337, , 2012

    13. 한국어와 중국어의 시간요소 연구에 대하여, 왕례량, 중국학연구회, 중국학연구 52: 25-46, , 2010

    14. 한국어 부사격 조사와 중국어 개사 대조 연구, 성윤숙, 석견, 중국인문학회, 中國人文 科學 42: 111‐134, , 2009

    15. 일본어권 한국어 학습자의 언어간 전이 오역 연구, 안경화, 어문연구 32: 471‐492, , 2004

    16. 중국어 보어에 상응하는 한국어 성분의 위치 문제, 김종호, 중국어문학 논집 22: 87-116, , 2001

    17. 중국 대학기관용 한국어 교재 개발 방향에 대한 고찰, 진정란, 중국학연구회, 중국학연 구 58: 269‐292, , 2011

    18. 중국에서의 초급한국어교재 문법항목의 문제점 및 개선방안, 김경화, 한국문법교육학회, 문 법교육 6: 12‐27, , 2007

    19. 한국어 학습자의 시제표현 문법형태의용법별 중간언어 연구, 김재욱, 언어과학연구 32: 89‐108, , 2005

    20. 일본어와 한국어의 과거형에 대하여-상태성 유무의 관점에서, 허재석, 日本語敎育硏究 18: 101-203, , 2010

    21. 외국인 학습자의 선어 말어미 -시-, -았/었-, -겠-의 중첩습득 연구, 임인재, 한정임, 안희돈, 심창용, 황종배, 홍진주, 한국언어과학회, 언어과학 15: 183‐199, , 2008

    22. 오류문 분석을 통한 시제 교육 방안: 중국어권 학습자를 대상으 로, 장은화, 한국문법교육학회, 한국문법교육학회 14: 337-363, , 2011

    23. 중국어화자의 한국어 쓰기 오류실태: 모국어 간섭현상을 중심으 로, 김경천, 중국문화연구학회, 中國文化硏究 13: 53‐66, , 2008

    24. 중국어권 학습자의 과거 시제 사용 오류 분석: “-았-”을 중 심으로, 김성란, 문법 교육 13: 137‐156, , 2010

    25. 한․일어의 완료상에 관한 대조연구 - 모어간섭의 영향을 중심으 로, 김혜연, 日本硏究 4: 131-149, , 2005

    26. 유형론적 관점에서 본 중국어 분류사의 발전 및 그와 한국어의 관련성, 박정구(Park Jung-Ku), 국어학회, 국어학 63: 391‐412, , 2012

    27. 현대중국어 어기조사에 관한 연구-상용어기조사의 문말 쓰임 중심으로, 오문경, 경희대학교 석사학위논문, , 2006

    28. 한국어 시제선어말어미 연구: 지각대상의 상태와 인지배경시간 을 중심으로, 차현실, 인지과학 2: 429‐453, , 1990

    29. 한국어 학습자의 오류 유형에 대한 연구: 시제 및 연결어미 표현을 중심으로, 김정남, 이중언어학 32: 118-139, , 2006

    30. 한국어 학습자의 시제표현 문법항목 발달패턴 연구 -구어 발화 자료 분석을 토대로-, 이해영, 이중언어학 22: 270-298, , 2003

    31. 한국어 학습자의 연결 어미 오류 양상에 관한 연구 -언어권별 오류 양상을 중심으로-, 김중섭, 한국어교육 13‐2: 87‐109, , 2002

    32. 중국어의 주요 기본 어순과 유형론적 특징: 부사어 어 순을 중심으로 한 한국어‐영어와의 비교를 통하여, 조희무, 안기섭, 중국인문학회, 中國人文科學 29: 81‐113, , 2004

    33. 과제유형에 따른 한국어 학습자의 중간언어 변이: 영어권 학습자의 한국어 시제표현 문법항목 습득을 대상으로, 이해영, 이중언어학 25: 255-283, , 2004

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼