RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
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
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      중국어 개사 ‘给’와 한국어 격조사 ‘에게’의 대조 연구: ‘S+給+NP1+V+NP2’ 구문형식을 중심으로 = A comparative study of the Chinese prepositional ‘给’ and the Korean case-auxiliary suffix ‘에게’

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A108967398

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      국문 초록 (Abstract)

      本文针对汉语“S+給+NP1+V+NP2”句中的“给”与韩语“에게”的对应关系以及 约束条件进行了考察。发现汉语“给”与韩语“에게”的共同点是两者都可以诱导 一种“授予”、“传达”、“受惠”的对象,但在对应关系上存在一定的制约条件。为了进 一步阐明这一制约条件,本研究首先根据“S+給+NP1+V+NP2”句子的后置名 词和后置谓语以及它们之间的语义关系进行了分类。在此基础上,将汉语“给” 和韩语“에게”进行对照,并对两者的差异进行了分析。分析结果显示,两者的对 应关系受到以下制约条件的影响。 第一,“에게1”和介词“給1”所带宾语为有生物 时,对应关系成立。 第二,“에게1”含有[+受惠]或[+传达]的积极语义时,无法与 “給2”对应。 第三,行为主体与后置名词都为有生物时,“에게3”和“給5”存在对应 关系。但“給5”与韩语“에게3”在传达语义上存在强弱差异,介词“給5”具有强调后 置谓语的功能, 但韩语“에게3”没有这种功能。
      번역하기

      本文针对汉语“S+給+NP1+V+NP2”句中的“给”与韩语“에게”的对应关系以及 约束条件进行了考察。发现汉语“给”与韩语“에게”的共同点是两者都可以诱导 一种“授予”、“传达”、“受...

      本文针对汉语“S+給+NP1+V+NP2”句中的“给”与韩语“에게”的对应关系以及 约束条件进行了考察。发现汉语“给”与韩语“에게”的共同点是两者都可以诱导 一种“授予”、“传达”、“受惠”的对象,但在对应关系上存在一定的制约条件。为了进 一步阐明这一制约条件,本研究首先根据“S+給+NP1+V+NP2”句子的后置名 词和后置谓语以及它们之间的语义关系进行了分类。在此基础上,将汉语“给” 和韩语“에게”进行对照,并对两者的差异进行了分析。分析结果显示,两者的对 应关系受到以下制约条件的影响。 第一,“에게1”和介词“給1”所带宾语为有生物 时,对应关系成立。 第二,“에게1”含有[+受惠]或[+传达]的积极语义时,无法与 “給2”对应。 第三,行为主体与后置名词都为有生物时,“에게3”和“給5”存在对应 关系。但“給5”与韩语“에게3”在传达语义上存在强弱差异,介词“給5”具有强调后 置谓语的功能, 但韩语“에게3”没有这种功能。

      더보기

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      This study contrasted the response relationship and constraints of the Chinese phrase ‘S+給+NP1+V+NP2’ between ‘给’ and Korean ‘에게’. Both ‘给’ and Korean ‘에게’ have something in common that they can lead to the objects of grant, communication, or benefit, but there were also certain constraints on the response relationship. In order to clarify this constraint, this study first classified semantic items according to the following nouns and trailing predicates of the phrase ‘S+給+NP1+V+NP2’ and their semantic relationships. Based on this, this paper compares Chinese ‘给’ with Korean ‘에게’ and analyzes the differences between the two. As a result of the analysis, the correspondence between the two was affected by the following constraints. First, the correspondence is established if the object ‘에게1’ and ‘给1’ are living beings. Second, when ‘에게1’ contains [+benefit] or [+transmission] positive semantics, it is impossible to communicate with ‘给2’ to each other. Third, when both the subject of action and the posterior object are living things, there is a correspondence between ‘에게3’ and ‘给5’. However, there is a difference in the meaning of ‘给5’ and ‘에게3’ in Korean. ‘给5’ has a function that emphasizes the posterior predicate, but ‘에게3’ in Korean does not have such a function.
      번역하기

      This study contrasted the response relationship and constraints of the Chinese phrase ‘S+給+NP1+V+NP2’ between ‘给’ and Korean ‘에게’. Both ‘给’ and Korean ‘에게’ have something in common that they can lead to the objects of...

      This study contrasted the response relationship and constraints of the Chinese phrase ‘S+給+NP1+V+NP2’ between ‘给’ and Korean ‘에게’. Both ‘给’ and Korean ‘에게’ have something in common that they can lead to the objects of grant, communication, or benefit, but there were also certain constraints on the response relationship. In order to clarify this constraint, this study first classified semantic items according to the following nouns and trailing predicates of the phrase ‘S+給+NP1+V+NP2’ and their semantic relationships. Based on this, this paper compares Chinese ‘给’ with Korean ‘에게’ and analyzes the differences between the two. As a result of the analysis, the correspondence between the two was affected by the following constraints. First, the correspondence is established if the object ‘에게1’ and ‘给1’ are living beings. Second, when ‘에게1’ contains [+benefit] or [+transmission] positive semantics, it is impossible to communicate with ‘给2’ to each other. Third, when both the subject of action and the posterior object are living things, there is a correspondence between ‘에게3’ and ‘给5’. However, there is a difference in the meaning of ‘给5’ and ‘에게3’ in Korean. ‘给5’ has a function that emphasizes the posterior predicate, but ‘에게3’ in Korean does not have such a function.

      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