글로버메뉴 바로가기 본문 바로가기 하단메뉴 바로가기

논문검색은 역시 페이퍼서치

중국언어연구검색

Journal of Chinese Linguistics in Korea


  • - 주제 : 어문학분야 > 중어중문학
  • - 성격 : 학술지
  • - 간기: 격월
  • - 국내 등재 : KCI 등재
  • - 해외 등재 : -
  • - ISSN : 1229-554x
  • - 간행물명 변경 사항 :
논문제목
수록 범위 : 75권 0호 (2018)
초록보기
The purpose of this study is to clarify the characteristics of modern vocabulary and grammar through the study of Diachronic evolution. The author investigated the diachronic evolution of the verbs of “go to+L”. The verbs of “go to+L” are “如(ru)”, “适(shi)”, “之(zhi)”, “往(wang)”, “去(qu)”. All of verb was existed in ancient time. “往(wang)” was the main used in ancient time. “去(qu)” took over “往(wang)” from Yuan Dynasty up to now. Since MingQing Dynasty, “往(wang)” had begun to grammaticalization of Verb into preposition or a complement. The author also investigated the reason that “去(qu)” is transitive verb and the cause of the difference between “往(wang)” and “向(xiang)” in modern Chinese. The reason that “去” has the characteristic of transitive verb is because that Although meaning of “departing from” in “去(qu)” changed to “go to+L”, but the structure of “去(qu)+L” has been maintained unchanged and succeeded to modern times. In addition, the reason why the object behind “往 (wang)” is specific place noun or Noun of locality is because that it have preserved the characteristics of Verb.

현대 중국어 항진명제 ‘N+시(是)+N’ 연구

정성임
한국중국언어학회|중국언어연구  75권 0호, 2018 pp. 27-54 ( 총 28 pages)
6,300
초록보기
The purpose of this essay was conducting the study on what the tautologic expression’s perfunctory and semantic characteristics were, and then, offering specific feature of the pragmatics, figuring out what the key(focused) element, which a speaker tries to display, with the highest information-transfer capability of that expression was. In addition to this, what impression speaker’s intension of utterance bears and how a listener infers accurately that of speaker were explained, as well as pragmatic strategy for ‘N+是+N’ was examined. The conclusion is that the patterns of meaning of the ‘N+是+N’ are 7 kinds such as singularity, subordinateness, individuality, equal status, progressiveness, impartation and representability. The 7 strategies for utterance for the ‘N+是+N’ are; Enlightenment; Admonition; Favor; Undeniableness; Sureness; imperativeness; and overstatement. It can be said that tautology is an utterance which a speaker uses intentionally in a context and also is a context-dependant expression which a listener will, by way of presupposing conceptual information and background knowledge, choose the meaning of the utterance thus interpret it in accordance with the context Through these investigations, the essay looked over many different aspects of tautologic ‘N+是+N’. And that’s all for this study with remaining of comparison between tautologies expressed in Korean and Chinese or further study on other sort of words to be conducted later.
5,900
초록보기
This study focused on the lexicalization phenomenon of the adverbs like ‘X+Wei(爲)’ and the semantic functions of ‘Wei’, using the theory of grammaticalization analysed the relationships among the meanings of Wei, and discussed the conditions and mechanisms during the lexicalization process of ‘X+Wei’. According to the results of this study, the ethmological meaning of Wei-‘work’, was great influence on the meaning development of Wei. Beside that, reanalysis, atemporalize and inference mechanisms were played an important role on the lexicalization of ‘X+Wei’. The suffix ‘Wei’ has two kinds of semantic functions, one is predicational function and the other one is leading the change.
5,900
초록보기
本文討論了現代漢語作爲應答語‘好,好?,好的,好?’的情態語義功能。本文的主要討論內容如下。 第一,引發語和應答語的互動聯系就是對話。 第二,應答語‘好’用于表示引發者和應答者的相互中性的情態功能。 第三,應答語‘好?’用于表示引發者中心的情態功能。 第四,應答語‘好的’用于表示引發者和應答者相互中心的情態功能。 第五,應答語‘好?’用于表示應答者相互中心的情態功能。
5,800
초록보기
The negative form ‘X沒有(Y)這?/那?+A’ of ‘you(有)’ comparative sentence to indicate the comparison and the negative form that takes up a large proportion in ‘A+guo(過)’ structure ‘X沒有(Y)這?/那?+A過’ are quite similar on the surface. And both of them indicates the comparative meaning. However, as a result of the study, it was found that there are the following differences. The former sentence has a characteristic of a typical comparative sentence because it tries to grasp a subject in relation to another subject. However the latter sentence implies that a certain subject has changed its attribute over time, simultaneously implying the present state of the subject. Therefore the specification of the comparison criterion for the ‘you(有)’ comparative sentence is unrestricted. And since an ideal subject becomes a comparison criterion, the adjective tends to aim for a positive or neutral meaning. On the other hand, the ‘A+guo(過)’ sentence structure does not require a comparison criteria and there is no limit to the semantic qualities of adjectives. However, a small number of irreversible property adjectives cannot appear in this structure because of taking ‘guo(過)’. Finally, the demonstrative pronoun ‘zheme(這?)/name(那?)’ in the two phrases plays an important role in connecting the ideas that are generated after observing the comparative object and the comparative criterion. In the ‘you(有)’ comparative sentence, ‘name(那?)’ is frequently used. On the other hand, in the ‘A+guo(過)’ structure, ‘zheme(這?)’ is often observed. In addition, in the ‘A+guo(過)’ structure, ‘zheme(這?)/name(那?)’ causes discrepancies in form and meaning, and frequently accompanies ‘conglai(從來)’ and the amount/quantity expressions as additional components.

‘연동문’의 정의와 범주 설정에 대한 소고

최신혜
한국중국언어학회|중국언어연구  75권 0호, 2018 pp. 127-146 ( 총 20 pages)
5,500
초록보기
This paper examines the terms and definitions of Serial-Verb Construction in Modern Chinese, and discusses the categorization of Serial-Verb Construction. First, we argued that the existing definition of “Structure in which consecutive verbs are used” does not reflect the overall structure and semantic relationship of this structure, and proposed that we need a new analysis based on the semantic relations of the whole sentence in which this composition is realized, not the form-based analysis. I note that Serial-Verb Construction consists of two or more clauses, thus suggested that Serial-Verb Construction is a complex sentence, not a simple sentence. Serial-Verb Constructions can not change the positions of the antecedent clause and the following clause, and the semantics are different even if they are changed. Therefore, they correspond to the subordinate structure, not the coordinate structure. The semantic types of Serial-Verb Constructions can be arranged as follows: Temporal relationship ②Method/Means ③Cause/Assumption ④Purpose ⑤ Positive/Negative ⑥The verb of the antecedent clause is ‘You’. According to the semantic relationship of the antecedent clause and the following clause of the Serial-Verb Construction, all of the subordinate clauses of the Serial-Verb Constructions were found to be adjunct clauses. Therefore, Serial-Verb Construction is a complex sentence composed of two or more clauses in a sentence system, and if we look at the semantic relationship, adjunct clause is embedded in it. Just as there are no particular names for complex sentences which have specifier clauses or complement clauses, the category for the sentences which have adjunct clauses also need not be named separately. Furthermore, the conventional name of ‘Serial-Verb Construction’ based on a form that does not have discriminative power is not suitable for this configuration.

『집운(集韻)』 고문(古文)의 출처(出處) 연구

조영화
한국중국언어학회|중국언어연구  75권 0호, 2018 pp. 147-162 ( 총 16 pages)
5,100
초록보기
This manuscript is a study of Jiyun Guwen. As a research result, Jiyun has total 1,282 characters which came from Shuowen Guwen, Shuowen Zhushi, Shuowen Xiaozhuan, Shuowen Zhouwen, Shuowen Huoti. In addition, I found that some parts of Guijinzigu, Santishijing, Yupian, Hanjian, Guwensishengyun and Lishu matched with Guwen. Jiyun also followed the previous case which Jiyun Guwen came from Tongjiazi, Tongjiazi Guwen, Leiyizi and Leiyizi Guwen. I can assumed that Jiyun collected huge amount of Guwen from old books through the study of origin of Jiyun Guwen. In spite of study of origin of Guwen, I found 102 origin unsured characters. I can say missing of original books is why it is important reasons. I can conclude that 30 characters among 102 origin unsured characters were made by Guwen Goujian characters which has same Jiyun. Shuowen Guwen before Jiyun is Bizhongshu characters. Jiyun covers all contents of previous Guwen includes Shuowen Guwen. The meaning of Guwen has been changed from Shuowen to Jiyun. It tell us that the meaning of Guwen expended from Shuowen to Jiyun. Basis of an argument, Jiyun stretch the meaning Guwen to the character of ancient books or the old text.

≪第五游≫古今字訓釋硏究

위량옥 ( Wei Liang Yu )
한국중국언어학회|중국언어연구  75권 0호, 2018 pp. 163-178 ( 총 16 pages)
5,100
초록보기
Korean scholar Shen Youzhen identified 187 pairs of Gujinzi(古今字) in the Chinese dictionary Diwuyou(≪第五游≫). These explanations are influenced by Chinese ancient exegetics, especially the traditional Chinese dictionaries such as Shuowenjiezi(≪說文解字≫) and Zhengzitong(≪正字通≫). Gujinzi explanation is one of the important stylistic rules in this book. It is an integral part of the explanation of each Chinese character. In addition to communicating the inter Chinese character relation, it also has other functions such as explaining the meaning of word, explaining the forming motivation of character, explaining the meaning of character component, building cross-reference rule, enrich the explanation, etc. Shen Youzhen’s concept of Gujinzi is the same as the understanding of ancient Chinese scholars, all referring to different writing styles of the same word in different time.

혼합코퍼스에 기반한 한중 접속사 번역 분석

김혜림
한국중국언어학회|중국언어연구  75권 0호, 2018 pp. 179-204 ( 총 26 pages)
6,100
초록보기
The study examined the characteristics of Korean-Chinese connectives translation of newspaper editorials by using a do-it-yourself composite corpus. First, it compared Chinese target texts(TT) and Chinese non-translated texts(NT) to classify connectives with remarkable difference and without difference in frequency between two different texts. And it compared a total of six representing connectives, three from each group, with Korean source texts(ST) to observe any changes in the course of translation. The translation was classified into three types: preservation, addition and substitution. The analysis showed that both groups of connectives with remarkable frequency difference and without difference had the highest preservation rate in ST. The connectives without frequency difference had a relatively low preservation rate. This suggested that connectives of the concerned meaning were frequently used in ST and reflected in TT rather than the connectives with high frequency in TT went through active intervention such as addition or substitution in the course of translation. Additions varied by connectives. All adversative connectives had explicitation of logical relations, showing the highest addition rate. This could mean that the addition rate varied depending on semantic relations of the connectives. As most substitutions occurred between connectives with a similar meaning in both groups, a drastic substitution did not appear.
1