http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
세계 주요 정기선사의 선박 투자전략 비교분석에 관한 연구
전기정,전준우,양창호,여기태,Jeon, Ki-Jeong,Jeon, Jun-Woo,Yang, Chang-Ho,Yeo, Gi-Tae 한국디지털정책학회 2016 디지털융복합연구 Vol.14 No.7
본 연구는 Fuzzy-AHP방법을 활용하여 세계 주요선사의 선박투자 전략을 비교분석하는 것을 연구의 목적으로 하였다. 선박투자요인은 선행연구를 통해 1차적으로 선정한 후, 해운선사 근무경력 15년 이상의 전문가와 심층 인터뷰(Indepth-Inerview)를 수행하였다. 전문가의 지식추출이 가능한 Fuzzy-AHP를 사용하여 최종적으로 선박투자요인에 대한 가중치를 산정하였다. 선행연구에서 제시한대로 선사들을 "시황흐름 무관 선박투자" 형, "시황상승기 이전 선박투자" 형, "과다발주에 동참 후 시황하락" 형, "시황상승기 선박투자 회피" 형으로 분류하여 선박투자 전략을 비교분석하였다. 분석결과, "시황흐름 무관 선박투자" 형의 선박투자 우선순위는 해운운임(0.132), 중고선가(0.121), 선복량(0.103), "시황상승기 이전 선박투자" 형의 선박투자 우선순위는 해운운임(0.134), 선주여건(0.113), 정책금융기관의 지원(0.109)이 중요요인으로 분석되었다. "과다발주에 동참 후 시황하락" 형의 선박투자 우선선위는, 해운운임(0.173), 선복량(0.169), 국제정세 변화(0.121), "시황상승기 선박투자 회피" 형의 경우 해운운임(0.293), 선복량(0.232), 유가(0.150)가 중요한 요인으로 분석되었다. The purpose of this study was to carry out comparative analysis on the world major liner shipping companies' ship investment strategy using Fuzzy-AHP model. In this study, the ship investment factors were firstly selected by literature review and finally adopted them by in-depth interview with experts who had working experiences over 15 years in the field of shipping business. As suggested in the previous research, the liner shipping companies have been classified into four types such as 'ship investment irrelevant to market trend'(Type1), 'ship investment before market rise'(Type2), 'market decline after participation in excessive orders'(Type3), 'avoidance of ship investment during market rise'(Type4) and the comparative analysis were conducted among four ship investment types. According to the results of analysis, ship investment priority in Type1 was freight rates(0.132), price of used ship(0.121) and fleet(0.103). The priority in Type2 was freight rates(0.134), need for ship owner(0.113) and public funding(0.109). Type3 put its priority in freight rates(0.173), fleet(0.169) and the changes in international circumstances(0.121). Type4 considered freight rates(0.239), fleet(0.232) and oil price(0.150) as its priority.
전기정 ( Jeon Gi-jeong ) 고려대학교 중국학연구소 2017 中國學論叢 Vol.57 No.-
This paper examines the nature of predicate coordination and its nominalization in modern Chinese, which have been a field of limited research. In English and Korean, when a verb appears at the position of a subject or an object, it goes through a process of explicit nominalization by changing its form or adding a suffix, but in Chinese, it can come to the position of a subject or an object without a morphological change. This pattern also appears in the predicate coordination connected by multiple verbs or adjectives. In modern Chinese, the most common conjunctions used in predicate coordination structures are “而”, “幷” and “和”, but their usages vary considerably. While the predicate coordinate structure using “和” could be freely positioned, the predicate coordinate structure that uses “幷” or “而” can come to the predicative or adnominal position only but cannot come to the subject or object position. This paper finds that the verbal coordinate structure connected by “幷” has verbal characteristics only, but the verbal coordinate structure connected by “和” has both noun and verbal characteristics, which makes the noun or verbal characteristics stronger or weaker depending on its position. In other words, the predicate coordinate structure connected by “和” has strong noun characteristics when it comes to the position of a subject or an object, and has strong verbal characteristics when it is in the position of the predicate. However, even if it comes to the position of a predicate, it does not lose its noun characteristics completely. Its verbal characteristics could manifest with the support of other supplementary elements, such as adverb, object, and complement.
全基廷(Jeon, Gi-jeong) 중국어문학연구회 2018 중국어문학논집 Vol.0 No.112
Based on the results of the research on the subject of the complex sentences, this paper analyzes the characteristics of the complex sentences between Chinese and Korean brought by the typological difference and the different views in how to construct the complex sentences between Chinese and Korean. Complex sentences in Korean are composed by conjunction and embedding, while Chinese only accepts conjunction without embedding. As a result, there are notable differences in detailed definitions, classification methods, characteristics, and main subjects of study between the two languages.
全基廷(Jeon, Gi-jeong) 중국어문학연구회 2017 중국어문학논집 Vol.0 No.103
The connective markers have different usage patterns or characteristics depending on the language. In this paper, the characteristics of the Chinese connective markers are examined through comparison with Korean in terms of language typology. Three different semantic types of coordination are usually distinguished: conjunctive, disjunctive and adversative coordination, and this paper focuses on the type of conjunctive coordination among them. The followings are discussed in this paper. First, according to Stassen(2000, 2001) and Haspelmath(2004), world languages are classified into AND-languages and WITH-languages. Chinese belongs to WITHーlanguages, whose NP-level coordinating constructions have the same features of co-case constructions, while Korean belongs the mixture pattern of AND-languages and WITH-languages. Second, both Chinese and Korean coordinating constructions have three types of connective markers; asyndetic, monosyndetic, and bisyndetic coordination. Monosyndetic and bisyndetic coordination are preferred in Korean. On the other hand, Chinese preferred asyndetic type the most, especially in spoken Chinese. Third, connective markers may be prepositive or postpositive. In Chinese, most of connective markers are prepositive, but mood particles are the only postpositive marker, so that the logical positions of connective markers in Chinese are asyndetic [A], [B], monosyndetic [A] [co B] and bisyndetic [co A] [co B](prepositive), [A co] [B co](postpositive). While most of connective markers in Korean are postpositive, therefore, the logical positions of connective markers are asyndetic [A], [B], monosyndetic [A co] [B] and bisyndetic [A co] [B co].