이 연구는 사전 기술과 드라마 병렬말뭉치 자료를 중심으로 한국어 조사 `-에`와 `-에서`의 의미를 살펴보고 세부 의미별로 대응되는 중국어 표현을 분석하였다. 현재 한·중 사전은 `-에`, `-에서`에 대응되는 중국어 표현을 매우 빈약하게 제시하고 있다. 병렬말뭉치 분석 결과 한국어 `-에`와 `-에서`는 조사이지만 그에 대응되는 중국어 표현은 조사뿐만 아니라 `개사`, `명사`, `접속사`, `개사구`, `부사` 등으로 다양했다. 또한 한국어에서 `-에`와 `-에서`는 분명히 구별되지만 `장소` 의미에 대응되는 중국어 대역어는 동일하게 나타났다. 그리고 `-에`와 `-에서`의 의미 중 중국어에 대응 표현이 없는 경우도 있었다. 본 연구는 기존 연구에서 자세히 다루어지지 않았던 `-에`와 `-에서`의 중국어 대응 표현들을 체계적으로 분석하였다는 점에서 의의가 있다. 한·중 병렬말뭉치를 분석해 실증적으로 한·중 대응 표현을 분석한 본 연구의 결과는 교수학습 현장 및 대조언어학 연구의 기초 자료로 활용될 수 있을 것이다. 또한 한·중 사전에서 `-에`와 `-에서`의 대역어를 보충하는 데에도 기여할 수 있을 것으로 생각된다.
Chinese learners of Korean language usually commit many errors in distinguishing between the Korean `e` and `eseo` postpositional particles. It is primarily because of the similarities in form, distribution, and use of both particles. Also, there exists various and complicated Chinese corresponding phrases to these two particles. Furthermore, the category of such Korean particles differ from their corresponding Chinese expressions. Specifically, the former belong to particle category only while the latter belong to noun, adverb, conjunction, and other domains, thus a variety in usage. This study investigated existing dictionary sources and parallel corpus of dramas used as substantiating evidence. From these materials, the meanings of Korean `e` and `eseo` postpositional particles were examined. After which, their respective meanings were analyzed and juxtaposed with their corresponding Chinese counterparts. Results revealed the following. First, it confirmed that there are insufficient conditions in the Chinese particles in regard to `e` and `eseo` particles that can be found in the Korean-Chinese dictionary. Second, it clarified that Chinese counterparts of Korean `e` and `eseo` particles include various categories such as noun, conjunction, adverb and others. This was evident when forms and syntax of various Chinese corresponding expressions in different categories were presented and explained. Third, despite the difference in form between `e` and `eseo`, they share a similarity with regards to the meaning of `location` in the form and meaning of five kinds of Chinese target words. Fourth, it identified conditions where the respective meanings of `e` and `eseo` do not correspond. Specifically in the meaning of `e` particle, this study discovered that it does not correspond well with Chinese categories involving `emphasis`, `qualification`, `time`,`measure`, `tool`, `means`, and `subjunction`. Fifth, it also identified the Korean modifier expression of `eseo`. Sixth, it revealed the new and frequency use of corresponding spoken Chinese expressions of Korean `e` and `eseo` particles which the existing literature have not identified. This study is significant in three ways. One is that it can be a material which can further substantiate the parallel corpus as a dependable source of data/information from which Chinese learners are the subject of study. Another way is that it can be a helpful resource to Korean language instructors as well as Chinese learners of Korean language in the field of language education. Finally, it can be a useful basic material in Contrastive Linguistics studies. Specifically, it can enrich the five kinds of Chinese target words relating to `e` and `eseo` particles.