Japanese particles “ni(に)” and “de(で)” that expresses location correspond to Korean particles “(e)에” and “eseo(에서).” This one-to-one correspondence (“ni” and “e,” and “de” and “eseo“) matches more than 99% of ...
http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)
Japanese particles “ni(に)” and “de(で)” that expresses location correspond to Korean particles “(e)에” and “eseo(에서).” This one-to-one correspondence (“ni” and “e,” and “de” and “eseo“) matches more than 99% of ...
Japanese particles “ni(に)” and “de(で)” that expresses location correspond to Korean particles “(e)에” and “eseo(에서).” This one-to-one correspondence (“ni” and “e,” and “de” and “eseo“) matches more than 99% of the time. Lee (2017) discusses two tendencies to the usage of “ni” and “de” that expresses location for Japanese learners in Korea that they pick up the usage from fixed sentences learned during education period or recall the forms “location+ni” and “place+de.” Lee (2017) backed up the preceding research on this selection of particles by testing in November 2013 on the relation between misuage of particles “ni” and “de” that expresses location with the influence on education and mother tongue (Respondents: 72 Japanese major students from P University in Pusan).
This study compares the usage of Japanese particles “ni” and “de” that expresses location by Japanese major and non-major students and examines the cause of misusage in Lee (2017)’s perspective.
Respondents for this test is 73 non-major students in K University in Pusan and follows the same test method of that conducted by Lee (2017) in November 2013.
Four major tendencies for the usage of particles “ni” and “de” to express location can be drawn from the comparison of Lee (2017)’s study Japanese major students with non-major students. 1. Difference between major and non-major students: Japanes major students scored more correct answers than non-major students. 2. Difference in education period: The percentage of correct answers relate to the education period of major students, however, the percentage does not equally relate to that of non-major students despite the length of education. 3. Influence on education: Both major and non-major students tend to answer more correct answers on beginner level questions that can be answered based on fixed sentences, grammars, and forms like it is mentioned by Ozeki (2007)’s research results. 4. Influence on mother tongue: Regardless of the education period of Japanese major or non-major students in Korea, their Korean mother tongue highly influenced their usage of “~sumu(住む)” and “~tomaru(泊まる) especially for intermediate and advanced learners than beginner level learners. The results draw many discrepancies from Ozeki (2007)’s opinions.
참고문헌 (Reference)
1 野田尚史, "日本語学習者の文法習得" 大修館書店 2001
2 野田尚史, "日本語学習者の文法習得" 大修館書店 2001
3 稲葉みどり, "日本語初級・中級レベルに見られる文法的誤り" 4 : 45-56, 2004
4 稲葉みどり, "日本語初級・中級レベルに見られる文法的誤り" (4) : 45-56, 2004
5 鈴木忍, "日本語初歩Ⅰ" 時事英語社 1990
6 迫田久美子, "学習者の誤用を産み出す言語処理のストラテジー(1)ー場所を表す(に)と(で)の場合" 11 : 17-22, 2001
7 이종은, "場所を表わす助詞「に」と「で」の使い分けの状況 -韓国人日本語学習者(初·中·上級者)を対象として-" 대한일어일문학회 (74) : 43-62, 2017
8 大関浩美, "場所を表す助詞に関する学習者の文法" (34) : 28-29, 2007
9 大関浩美, "場所を表す助詞に関する学習者の文法" (34) : 28-29, 2007
10 庵功雄, "初級を教える人のための日本語文法ハンドブツク" スリーエーネツトワーク 2002
1 野田尚史, "日本語学習者の文法習得" 大修館書店 2001
2 野田尚史, "日本語学習者の文法習得" 大修館書店 2001
3 稲葉みどり, "日本語初級・中級レベルに見られる文法的誤り" 4 : 45-56, 2004
4 稲葉みどり, "日本語初級・中級レベルに見られる文法的誤り" (4) : 45-56, 2004
5 鈴木忍, "日本語初歩Ⅰ" 時事英語社 1990
6 迫田久美子, "学習者の誤用を産み出す言語処理のストラテジー(1)ー場所を表す(に)と(で)の場合" 11 : 17-22, 2001
7 이종은, "場所を表わす助詞「に」と「で」の使い分けの状況 -韓国人日本語学習者(初·中·上級者)を対象として-" 대한일어일문학회 (74) : 43-62, 2017
8 大関浩美, "場所を表す助詞に関する学習者の文法" (34) : 28-29, 2007
9 大関浩美, "場所を表す助詞に関する学習者の文法" (34) : 28-29, 2007
10 庵功雄, "初級を教える人のための日本語文法ハンドブツク" スリーエーネツトワーク 2002
11 "みんなの日本語初級Ⅰ 本册 第6課、場所の「で」" 53-,
12 スリーエーネットワーク, "みんなの日本語 初級1、2" スリーエーネットワーク 1998
13 野田尚史, "はじめての人の日本語文法" くろしお出版 1991
14 野田尚史, "はじめての人の日本語文法" くろしお出版 1991
잡지『東洋之光』으로 본 東洋과 西洋 - 아시아 중심주의 모색과 좌절 -
韓国語と日本語の漢字音における子音の対応に関する一考察 -日本語の漢字の効果的な教育のための-
학술지 이력
연월일 | 이력구분 | 이력상세 | 등재구분 |
---|---|---|---|
2026 | 평가예정 | 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증) | |
2020-01-01 | 평가 | 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) | |
2017-01-01 | 평가 | 등재학술지 선정 (계속평가) | |
2016-01-01 | 평가 | 등재후보학술지 유지 (계속평가) | |
2015-12-01 | 평가 | 등재후보로 하락 (기타) | |
2011-01-01 | 평가 | 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) | |
2009-01-01 | 평가 | 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) | |
2006-01-01 | 평가 | 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) | |
2005-01-01 | 평가 | 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) | |
2003-01-01 | 평가 | 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) |
학술지 인용정보
기준연도 | WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) | KCIF(2년) | KCIF(3년) |
---|---|---|---|
2016 | 0.35 | 0.35 | 0.29 |
KCIF(4년) | KCIF(5년) | 중심성지수(3년) | 즉시성지수 |
0.27 | 0.24 | 0.556 | 0.05 |