http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
李正秀(Jeong-Soo Lee),吳英淑(Young-Sook Oh) 호서대학교 공업기술연구소 2001 공업기술연구 논문집 Vol.20 No.1
This paper attempts to verify the characteristics of memorial halls in campus. To achieve this purposes, some papers reviewed, and followed by the field surveys on the projects in campus. The outcomes from this study are as follows : (l)The facility programs of memorial hall in campus are focused on the supporting facility of research and the welfare of campus members. (2)The location of memorial halls in campus is decided according to the purposes of construction, the functional facility program, and relationship with the outsides of campus. (3)It is important to considerate the management program before construction to have a balanced income and outgo. As a results of these study, the new design model of memorial building in campus is proposed.
李正秀,张在雄 연세대학교 인문학연구원 2016 人文科學 Vol.107 No.-
Every minority language taught in Chinese universities is strengthening their own characteristics, named as the mode of “language+professional knowledge”. But most of the universities in China only include in their curricula part of the contents in economics, trading, science of business administration, and the knowledge is quite essential. The author proposes to teach students more basic knowledge concerning economy, trading, and business administration. It is no doubt that business Korean can be taught in various modes, methods and levels. But the author argues that there is still a limitation in teaching students only trade practicein recent years, even if in the teaching practice of “language+professional knowledge”.
李正秀,张在雄 한국언어연구학회 2017 언어학연구 Vol.22 No.3
This article researches on different expressions of honorifics in Chinese, Korean and English, by comparing kinship addresses and social forms of addresses in the three languages. In the first chapter, goals and ranges of the research are stated, and a study on advanced researches is done to provide hints in desired effects. In the second chapter, terms of addresses, designations, summons, and honorifics are distinguished and defined. Meanwhile, examples of kinship addresses in Chinese, Korean and English are given. Also, elder kinship address terms, younger generation kinship address terms, parents’In the third chapter, addresses are classified as kinship addresses in subjunctive mood, “Last Name + Occupation” last name, and first name, and distinctive features of address terms in the three languages are found out. Brown&Ford’development model of the address between listeners and speakers is quoted to explain the degree of respect of honorific addresses that are used in the three languages in the common forms of “Last Name + Occupation” In the second half of the third chapter, key factors that determine the usage of honorific addresses in the three languages are found out and then ranked in terms of their influences. In the fourth chapter, the author brings up the direction of further researches as well as draws conclusions of this research.
목정수(Mok Jung soo)(睦正洙),이상희(Lee Sang hee)(李相喜) 형태론 2016 형태론 Vol.18 No.2
이 논문은 한국어에서 문두에 나타나는 여격어 ‘NP-에게’의 주어성을 다시 검토하고 문두여격어 구문의 구조를 분석하기 위한 것이다. 본 논의의 문제의식은 ‘한국어의 소위 ‘여격주어’라고 하는 것이 과연 다른 언어들에서 나타나는 여격주어/비주격주어 현상과 본질적으로 같은 것인가?’ 하는 질문에서 출발한다. 문두여격어 구문의 분석에서 두 번째 명사구의 통사적 지위, 이중주어 구문과의 구조적 차이가 명확히 밝혀지지 않았고, 문두여격어의 주어성 검증 과정에서도 아직 해결되지 않은 문제들이 존재한다. 필자는 문두여격어가 주어가 아니라는 관점을 취할 때 많은 문제들이 해결될 수 있다고 보았다. 또한 문두여격어 구문은 이중주어 구문과 별개의 구문이며, 그에 따라 두 구문의 통사적·의미적 차이가 발생한다는 것을 밝히고자 하였다. The objective of this study is to reexamine the subjecthood of the fronted dative constituent NP-ege and to analyze syntactically the construction. We raised a question of whether Dative Subject of Korean is identical to non-nominative subject of other languages. We need to answer what the second NP of this construction is, and how different this construction is from so-called double-subject constructions. Also, some issues remain unsolved in the earlier subjecthood tests. We think the key to solve the problems is to clarify the syntactic status of the fronted dative NP-ege . So I reexamined the subjecthood tests to prove that NP-ege is not a subject, but a locative. Finally, we claim that the fronted dative construction is one thing, and the double-subject constructions is another. The difference of argument structure in these two constructions brings about syntactic/semantic difference.