러시아어 외래어 표기의 제문제 - 모음 표기를 중심으로 -

변군혁 계명대학교 인문과학연구소 2024 동서인문학 Vol.- No.66

Foreign language notation systems aim to standardize the spelling of loanwords to prevent confusion. However, in the process of incorporating foreign words into the Korean language, confusion occurs as various spellings that differ from the national norms are used among speakers. Even though there is a standard notation according to national norms, there are cases where words are not recognized as the same due to different notation. There are three principles in the rules for notation of foreign words, along with the principle of original sound. First, ‘the 1 phoneme 1 notation principle’ allows only one notation for one phoneme, the second is ‘the original sound principle’, which means that when writing a foreign word, it is written close to the original sound, and finally, ‘the idiomatic notation principle’ is to use idiomatic words that are familiar to the public. It follows the notation. In this paper, I suggest a new norm by revising and supplementing the loanword notation norms for Russian vowels based on the one phoneme one notation principle and the original phonetic principle. In other words, I propose that the vowel ‘ы’ be written as ‘ㅣ’ in the same way as the vowel и, and that the vowel ‘э’ be written as ‘ㅔ’ in all environments, distinguishing it from the vowel ‘е’. These changes aim to simplify the learning and understanding of Russian loanwords in Korean, enhancing linguistic accessibility and reducing confusion.

러시아어 구개음화의 통시적 고찰

변군혁 사단법인 한국언어학회 2017 한국언어학회 학술대회지 Vol.2017 No.12

러시아의 동사 과거시제 패러다임 내 동일성 연구

변군혁 韓國外國語大學校 大學院 1998 里門論叢 Vol.18 No.1

러시아어 파열음의 실험음성학적 연구

변군혁 한국노어노문학회 2006 한국노어노문학회 학술대회 발표집 Vol.2006 No.9

러시아어 파열음에 나타나는 연자음의 음향음성학적 연구

변군혁,Byun, Koon-Hyuk 대한음성학회 2007 말소리 Vol.61 No.-

The present study investigates acoustic cues of russian soft plosive consonants. In previous studies, russian soft consonants are distinguished from hard consonants by F1, F2 of following vowels. The result showed: (1) that F0 of soft plosive consonants in following vowels were lower than those of hard plosive consonants; (2) and that VOT of soft plosive consonants were longer than those of hard plosive consonants. Hence, the present that, in addition to F1, F2, VOT and F0 are detected as acoustic cues that differentiate soft plosive consonants from hard plosive consonant in Russian.

현대 러시아어 음성ㆍ음운론의 흐름

변군혁 한국노어노문학회 2007 한국노어노문학회 학술대회 발표집 Vol.2007 No.11

실험음성학적 관점에서 바라본 러시아어 마찰음 ш와 щ의 음성적 특징 연구

변군혁 ( Koon Hyuk Byun ) 한국외국어대학교 러시아연구소 2012 슬라브연구 Vol.28 No.3

러시아어 자음체계에서 마찰음 щ는 매우 독특한 위치를 점하고 있다. 마찰음 щ의 음운적 지위에 대해서는 여러 학자들의 견해가 서로 다르지만, 음성적으로 [s`:]로 실현된다는 것에서는 대체로 일치된 견해를 보인다. 즉, 마찰음 щ가 마찰음 ш에 대응하는 장연자음(долгий мягкий)이라는 것이다. 본고는 지금까지 많은 연구가 되었지만, 아직까지 일치된 견해를 보이지 못하는 마찰음 щ의 음운론적 지위에 대한 논의에서 벗어나 마찰음 ш와 щ의 음성적 특징을 통해 이 두 마찰음의 대립을 설명하고자 한다. 본고에서는 경자음-연자음 대립을 이루고 있는 마찰음 ш와 щ의 음성적 특징을 알아보기 위해 마찰소음구간 길이, F2, F0, 에너지 집중도를 비교하였다. 본격적인 실험에 앞서, 조음점의 차이로 인해 예상되는 가설을 먼저 설정하고 실험 가설과 실험 결과가 일치하는지를 살펴보았다. 실험 결과 두 마찰음의 조음점 차이는 마찰소음 길이와 F2에서 분명히 나타났다. 그러나 에너지 집중도의 경우 두 집단 간 차이가 확연한 차이를 보이지 않을 것이라는 가설과 달리 통계적으로 유의미한 차이를 보였다. 또한, F0는 실험 가설과 달리 두 마찰음의 차이가 나타나지 않았다. 실험 결과를 토대로 이 두 음의 음성적 차이를 살펴보면 마찰소음의 길이 차이는 щ가 장음이라는 사실을 뒷받침하고, F2의 차이는 두 음이 경자음과 연자음의 대립을 이루고 있음을 뒷받침하며, 에너지 집중도의 차이는 두 음의 조음점 차이를 뒷받침해준다. 본고는 기존의 음운론적 관점에서 벗어나 음성적으로 대응 관계에 있는 마찰음 ш와 щ의 음성적 특징을 실험음성학점 관점에서 분석하여 두 음의 차이를 실증적으로 입증했다. Russian fricative щ(shch) has a peculiar position. There are many different explanations about phonological position of fricative щ. But there is the same opinion that fricative щ is realized as [s`:] on the surface form. Soft щ is the long soft consonant relating to hard consonant ш. This paper aims to explain the articulatory position of fricative ш and щ and to explain how the two fricatives contrast each other not by phonological but by phonetic approach. In order to explain the contrast between two fricatives, I look over several acoustic cues; fricative noise duration, F2(second formant), F0(fundamental frequency) and energy concentration. At first, I assume possible hypothesis which is expected in the result of the articulatory difference of two consonants. And through the experiment, I make an inspection of the difference between two consonants. The result of experiment shows that two consonants have differences in fricative noise duration, F2, energy concentration. However F0 is not different each other, thus the result is not in accordance with the hypothesis. Instead, this study shows the same result from the previous study by Byun(2007)The difference of F2 value between two fricative consonants shows that they have a different articulatory position. Moreover, medium F2 value, 1876Hz, of soft consonant щ is equal to Fant(1960)`s result that Russian soft consonants have F2 value above 1700Hz. So the result of this experiment supports that Russian fricative щ is soft consonant. And the difference of fricative noise duration between two consonants shows that they have a different duration of production. This supports that fricative щ is long consonant. There are many researches on fricatives ш and щ. These researches have almost done through phonological explanation. But there are few papers about acoustic features of the difference between two consonants by phonetic approach. In this regard, I try to prove the features of fricatives ш and щ and the difference of two consonants not by phonological but by phonetic approach. The result of this experiment supports the phonologists` insistence that Russian fricative щ is long soft fricative relating to hard fricative ш.

한국인 학습자의 러시아어 의문문 억양 인지 연구

변군혁 ( Koonhyuk Byun ) 한국외국어대학교 언어연구소 2016 언어와 언어학 Vol.0 No.70

This paper investigates Korean learners` perception of Russian interrogate intonation. Unlike in English and Korean, there is no morphological or syntactical mark of interrogate sentence in Russian. But Russian intonation plays a important role to distinguish declarative from interrogate sentence. In this paper I try to understand that Korean learners perceive intonation of interrogate sentences well or not, and there is difference of perception of interrogate sentences according to learners` ability of language. The result shows that regardless of learners` ability of language, Korean learners perceive wh- questions with high identification accuracy. But beginners perceive yes-no questions with lower identification accuracy. The reason is that they are accustomed to English intonation of yes-no questions with a final rise(H%). And in second test to perceive boundary tone, regardless of learners` ability of language, Korean learners perceive yes-no questions with lower identification accuracy.

합성을 통한 러시아어 평서문 운율 구조 분석

변군혁(Byun Koon Hyuk),안상철(Ahn Sang Cheol) 한국노어노문학회 2008 노어노문학 Vol.20 No.4

본 논문의 목적은 러시아어 학습에 있어 어떤 운율 자질이 중요하게 작용하는지 알아보고 원어민 발화에 나타난 이 자질들을 한국인 화자의 발화에 합성함으로써 원어민의 발화와 어느 정도 비슷해지는 지를 살펴보는 것이다. 이를 통해 러시아어 교육에서 억양의 어떤 운율자질을 주의깊게 살펴야 하는지 제안하고자 한다. 본 논문의 실험에서 러시아 원어민 화자와 한국인 화자의 발화를 비교하여 이 두 그룹 사이에 어떠한 운율 자질의 차이를 보이는지를 살필 것이다. 그리고 한국인의 억양에 이 운율자질을 보완하여 합성할 경우, 한국인의 억양이 러시아 원어민의 억양과 유사해지는지를 살펴본다. 또한 한국인 화자의 발화를 러시아원어민의 발화와 합성한 결과를 청취실험을 통해 평가한다. 본 논문에서는 러시아 원어민 화자의 억양에서 주요한 운율 자질을 추출하여 한국인 화자에 적용시켰을 경우 비교적 자연스러운 러시아어 발화를 할 수 있음을 보여줌으로써 러시아어 학습시 분절음의 발음뿐 아니라 러시아어 억양이 매우 중요함을 보여주고자 한다. This paper examines the major differences between the Russian native speakers utterances and those of Korean learners, with respect the various prosodic aspects. To this end, we use Praat scripts to superimpose the native speakers' prosodic features to the Korean learners' utterances. We then measure to what extent the superimposed utterances show perceptual improvements, comparing with the earlier ones. The experiments are focused on the F0 and durational differences, while the superimposition procedure is divided into three steps, i.e., 'duration only', 'fundamental frequency only' and 'duration and fundamental frequency' for perception tests. The overall test results show that fundamental frequency takes a more important role in the perception of intonational pattern in a natural speech.

러시아어와 이탈리아어 겹자음의 유형론적 비교

변군혁 ( Koon Hyuk Byun ) 한국이탈리아어문학회(구 한국이어이문학회) 2015 이탈리아어문학 Vol.0 No.46

The purpose of this paper to analyze geminates in Russian and Italian. Geminate refers to a long or double consonant that contrasts phonemically with its shorter or singleton counterpart. It is not uncommon to find examples of geminates in many languages. We can find many examples of geminates in Russian and Italian as well. But phonological status of two languages is not same. Hayes(1986) distinguishes ``true`` geminates from ``fake`` ones. ``True`` geminates are doubly linked and ``fake`` geminates are linked just singly linked into segments. In Russian most geminates are found in boundary of morphemes, but few are within morphemes. And Russian geminates found within morphemes are all loanwords originated from other languages. Unlike in Russian, there are many geminates that are found within morphemes and boundary of morphemes in Italian. Russian geminates found in boundary of morphemes can be splittable by epenthesis. But Italian ones can``t be splittable by epenthesis. In this regard, it can be said that Russian has fake geminates but Italian has true geminates. And it is noticeable that geminates are found frequently in intervocalic and immediate post-accent position in both Russian and Italian. The environment of Raddoppiamento Sintattico, the gemination of a word initial consonant when preceded by a stressed vowel, is the same position. As the result of RS, there are many gemintes found in Italian. Russian palatal [s``:] and Italian palatals [s], [n] are internally long consonants and pronounced longer than any single consonants in any position.