지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 저널정보
- 중국어문학연구회 중국어문학논집 中國語文學論集 第115號
- 발행연도
- 2019.4
- 수록면
- 251 - 272 (22page)
- DOI
- 10.25021/JCLL.2019.4.115.251
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
For Chinese education in Korea, the ability to produce grammatically correct sentences is an important indicator for evaluating communication skills. Cultivating grammatical competence not only helps to improve conversation ability, but also is a necessity for the improvement of reading and writing skills. The communicative teaching system centered on ‘function-usage’ and the grammar education system centered on ‘structure-knowledge’ should coordinate with each other in the process of cultivating learners’ grammatical competencies. At present, the Chinese grammar education in Korea lacks a clear system, and even the standardization of educational grammar items has not yet been completed. It is frequent to see that educational grammar books and teaching materials use different terms to describe the same grammatical phenomenon, and these authors have different opinions. The standardizations of grammar system and grammar items of Korea’s Chinese education need to be solved urgently.
Due to the large difference between the two languages, it is quite difficult for Korean learners to acquire Chinese degree complements and they are prone to making mistakes. This paper, taking degree complement as the research object, inspected the terms, categories and descriptions of degree complements in Chinese educational grammar syllabus and educational grammar works in China and Korea, and analyzed their shortcomings.
First of all, in Chinese education, most of the degree complements (collective), state complements, and degree complements (differential) are called “degree complements”, which confuses learners.
Secondly, some treatises call ‘state complements’ as ‘modal complements’ or “pattern complements”, all of which refer to almost the same category. In the process of grammar teaching, the inconsistency of terminologies has intensified the confusion of teachers and learners.
Then, almost all treatises and books describe the semantic function of Chinese complement as: added after the predicate (verb, adjective) to reflect the degree of action or state. This kind of literal translation of Chinese grammar works brings about some problems. It is very difficult for Korean learners to correctly understand and express the concept of “degree of action”.
Finally, when pointing out the adjectives, verbs, and psychological verb predicates that can be used to match degree complements (collective) and degree complements (differential), authors never come to an agreement. Some skip the expression of “predicate” at the syntactic level, but directly mix the concept of “verbs, adjectives (phrases)” at the morphological level with the “complement (sentence elements)” at the syntactic level, making learners at a loss. In addition, when explaining the structure of ‘verb + object + verb + ‘de’ + degree complement/state complement/pattern complement’, different authors use different expressions such as ‘degree complement (collective)’, ‘state complement’, and ‘modal complement’, which causes a confusion of concepts. This inconsistency in the expression and interpretation of concepts has confused teachers and students both in the actual teaching and ability evaluation process, and also led learners to make a large number of mistakes. Such problems can be solved effectively through the standardization of Chinese educational grammar. This paper points out that the standards and principles are ‘correctness, system, universality, appropriateness and relative hierarchy’. It is hoped that the scope of application of the above-mentioned standards and principles can be extended from degree complements to the establishment of Chinese educational grammar system in Korean, and become the research basis for the formulation of Chinese grammar education syllabus. At the same time, the early realization of the standardization of Chinese educational grammar items is also expected.
Due to the large difference between the two languages, it is quite difficult for Korean learners to acquire Chinese degree complements and they are prone to making mistakes. This paper, taking degree complement as the research object, inspected the terms, categories and descriptions of degree complements in Chinese educational grammar syllabus and educational grammar works in China and Korea, and analyzed their shortcomings.
First of all, in Chinese education, most of the degree complements (collective), state complements, and degree complements (differential) are called “degree complements”, which confuses learners.
Secondly, some treatises call ‘state complements’ as ‘modal complements’ or “pattern complements”, all of which refer to almost the same category. In the process of grammar teaching, the inconsistency of terminologies has intensified the confusion of teachers and learners.
Then, almost all treatises and books describe the semantic function of Chinese complement as: added after the predicate (verb, adjective) to reflect the degree of action or state. This kind of literal translation of Chinese grammar works brings about some problems. It is very difficult for Korean learners to correctly understand and express the concept of “degree of action”.
Finally, when pointing out the adjectives, verbs, and psychological verb predicates that can be used to match degree complements (collective) and degree complements (differential), authors never come to an agreement. Some skip the expression of “predicate” at the syntactic level, but directly mix the concept of “verbs, adjectives (phrases)” at the morphological level with the “complement (sentence elements)” at the syntactic level, making learners at a loss. In addition, when explaining the structure of ‘verb + object + verb + ‘de’ + degree complement/state complement/pattern complement’, different authors use different expressions such as ‘degree complement (collective)’, ‘state complement’, and ‘modal complement’, which causes a confusion of concepts. This inconsistency in the expression and interpretation of concepts has confused teachers and students both in the actual teaching and ability evaluation process, and also led learners to make a large number of mistakes. Such problems can be solved effectively through the standardization of Chinese educational grammar. This paper points out that the standards and principles are ‘correctness, system, universality, appropriateness and relative hierarchy’. It is hoped that the scope of application of the above-mentioned standards and principles can be extended from degree complements to the establishment of Chinese educational grammar system in Korean, and become the research basis for the formulation of Chinese grammar education syllabus. At the same time, the early realization of the standardization of Chinese educational grammar items is also expected.
목차
1. 서론
2. 교육문법항목 정도보어의 현황
3. 교육문법항목 정도보어의 문제점
4. 결론 - 정도보어 표준화를 위한 제언
參考文獻
ABSTRACT
참고문헌 (24)
참고문헌 신청
박정구 / 1998 / 현대 중국어 보어분류의 재고 / 중국언어연구 7
방성원 / 2002 / 한국어 교육용 문법 용어의 표준화 방안 / 한국어교육 13(1):5~126
박용진 / 2015 / 한국인 중국어 학습자를 위한 중국어교육 이론과 중간언어 말뭉치 분석 / 역락
손민정 / 2006 / 제7차 중국어 교육과정의 문법 내용 고찰 ― <의사소통 기능 예시문>을 중심으로 / 중국문학 49:369~383
손민정 / 2014 / 2009 총론 개정에 따른 중국어 교육과정 의사소통 기본 표현의 현장 적합성 고찰 / 중국언어연구 (54):303~336
방성원 / 2002 / 한국어 교육용 문법 용어의 표준화 방안 / 한국어교육 13(1):5~126
박용진 / 2015 / 한국인 중국어 학습자를 위한 중국어교육 이론과 중간언어 말뭉치 분석 / 역락
손민정 / 2006 / 제7차 중국어 교육과정의 문법 내용 고찰 ― <의사소통 기능 예시문>을 중심으로 / 중국문학 49:369~383
손민정 / 2014 / 2009 총론 개정에 따른 중국어 교육과정 의사소통 기본 표현의 현장 적합성 고찰 / 중국언어연구 (54):303~336
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
새로운 한국어 표준 문법에 대한 탐색- 『한국어 표준 문법』(2018)을 중심으로 -
언어사실과 관점
2019 .01
-
교사 문법과 학습자 문법의 비교 연구
한말연구
2018 .01
-
표준 국어 문법 개발의 의의와 활용
언어와 정보사회
2018 .01
-
‘교수법 문법’에 의한 전공과목 수업 방안 -중국어 심화 관련 전공과목 수업을 중심으로-
철학∙사상∙문화
2023 .01
-
텍스트 범주에 기초한 현대중국어문법교육 小考 : 비(非)중국어권 언어 환경에서의 중국어문법교육
중국어문학논집
2017 .02
-
韩国汉语语法發展史考察
중국어문학논집
2022 .08
-
초등 예비 교사의 영어 문법 능력 및 문법 지도 지식의 변화에 관한 연구
영어교과교육
2024 .02
-
표준 국어 문법 통사론 분야의 특징과 활용
언어와 정보사회
2018 .01
-
유길준의 大韓文典과 문법관 일고찰
언어사실과 관점
2016 .01
-
중국어 교육문법의 표현항목 선정에 관한 고찰 - 의사소통 기능항목을 토대로 -
중국언어연구
2015 .04
-
‘학교 문법 체계’의 검토와 제안
언어과학연구
2024 .12
-
한국인 중국어 학습자를 위한 필수문법항목 재고
중국어교육과연구
2020 .12
-
표준 국어 문법의 구축
언어와 문화
2016 .01
-
김수경의『조선어 문법』(1955)과 이숭녕의『중등국어문법』(1956) 비교 연구 - 체계와 문법 단위를 중심으로-
한글
2023 .12
-
2009∼2018년 대학수학능력 중국어 시험의 문법 난이도 연구
중국어교육과연구
2020 .06
-
근현대기 일본문법서에 나타난 ‘문법’의 쓰임과 개념의 추이
언어사실과 관점
2016 .01
-
L1과 L2 언어 간의 영향과 문법난이도의 차이 분석 - 중국어문법능력평가 시험 개발을 위한 분석 -
중국어교육과연구
2019 .06
-
일본어교육에서 다루어야 할 문법
日本語敎育
2020 .01
-
20세기 초 국어 문법서에 나타난 문법 개념의 발달과정
국어사연구
2016 .01
-
학교 문법에서 보어의 기술 양상과 교육적 접근
국어교육연구
2023 .10
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2019-820-000685575