NDSL 9,980 Link page¿¡¼­ [¿ø¹®º¸±â] ¹öÆ°À» Ŭ¸¯Çϼ¼¿ä.

[±¹³» ÇÐÀ§³í¹®]

¿ì¸® ³ª¶óÀÇ °íµîÇб³ ¿µ¾î ±³À°°úÁ¤Àº Á¢±Ù¹æ¹ý°ú °­Á¶Á¡¿¡ À־ º¯È­¸¦ °Þ¾ú´Ù. °³ÆíµÈ ±³À°°úÁ¤¿¡¼­ °­Á¶µÇ°í ÀÖ´Â ¹Ù´Â ÀÇ»ç ¼ÒÅëÀÇ ´É·Â ½ÅÀåÀÌ´Ù. ÀÇ»ç ¼ÒÅë ´É·ÂÀÇ °­Á¶´Â ¿µ¾î Áö½Äº¸´Ù´Â ¿µ¾î¸¦ »ç¿ëÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ´É·ÂÀ» ±â¸£´Â µ¥ ÁßÁ¡À» µÎ°í ÀÖ´Ù. ¿¬½À¹®Á¦´Â ±³°ú¼­¿¡¼­ Á¦½ÃµÈ µè±â, Àбâ, ¸»Çϱâ, ¾²±â µîÀÇ ÁÖ¿ä Ç׸ñÀ» ¹Ýº¹¡¤½ÉÈ­ÇÏ´Â °úÁ¤À» °®°í ÀÖÀ¸¸ç »çÁ¤(assessment) ¿ªÇÒ±îÁö ¼öÇàÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù. µû¶ó¼­ ÇöÀçÀÇ ¿ì¸® ³ª¶óÀÇ °íµîÇб³¿¡¼­ »ç¿ëµÇ´Â ¿µ¾î ±³°ú¼­ÀÇ ¿¬½À¹®Á¦ À¯ÇüÀ» ±â°èÀû, À¯ÀÇÀû ±×¸®°í ÀÇ»ç ¼ÒÅëÀû È°µ¿À¸·Î ºÐ¼® ÇÔÀ¸·Î½á ±³À°°úÁ¤¿¡¼­ Á¦½ÃÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Â ÀÇ»ç ¼ÒÅë ´É·Â ¹è¾ç¿¡ ¾î´À Á¤µµ ÀÏÄ¡ÇÏ´ÂÁö ¿¬±¸ÇÏ´Â ÀÛ¾÷Àº ÇÊ¿äÇÏ´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸´Â ÇöÇà °íµîÇб³ ¿µ¾î ±³°ú¼­ ¿¬½À¹®Á¦ÀÇ ±³°ú¼­°£, ÇгⰣÀ¸·Î °¢ ¹®Ç׿¡ ´ëÇØ ´ÙÀ½°ú °°Àº À¯ÀÇÀûÀÎ ¿¬±¸ ¹®Á¦¸¦ °¡Áö°í ÀÖ´Ù. (1) ÇöÇà °íµîÇб³ ¿µ¾î ±³°ú¼­ ¿¬½À¹®Á¦ ¹®Ç×ÀÌ ¾ð¾î ±â´É(ÀÌÇØ ±â´É, Ç¥Çö ±â´É)º°, ³»¿ëº°, À¯Çü(±â°èÀû ¿¬½À, À¯ÀÇÀû ¿¬½À, ÀÇ»ç ¼ÒÅë È°µ¿)º°·Î ±³°ú¼­°£, ÇгⰣ¿¡ À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ Àִ°¡? (2) ¿¬½À¹®Á¦¿¡ Á¦½ÃµÈ ÀÌÇØ¡¡±â´É(µè±â, Àбâ)ÀÇ ¹®Ç×ÀÌ ³»¿ë°ú À¯Çüº°·Î ±³°ú¼­°£, ÇгⰣ¿¡ À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ Àִ°¡? (3) ¿¬½À¹®Á¦¿¡ Á¦½ÃµÈ Ç¥Çö ±â´É(¸»Çϱâ, ¾²±â)ÀÇ ¹®Ç×ÀÌ ³»¿ë°ú À¯Çüº°·Î ±³°ú¼­°£, ÇгⰣ¿¡ À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ Àִ°¡? ¿¬±¸ ´ë»óÀº °íµîÇб³ ¿µ¾î±³°ú¼­ 3°³ ÇгâÀÇ 5Á¾(ÃÑ 15±Ç)À» ¼±Á¤ÇÏ¿´°í, °¢ ±³°ú¼­ÀÇ '¿¬½À¹®Á¦' ºÎºÐÀ» ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¿¬±¸ µµ±¸´Â ¼±Ç࿬±¸ ¹× Á¦ 6Â÷ ±³À°°úÁ¤ ¿µ¾î°ú Æò°¡¸ñÇ¥¸¦ ÁØ°Å·Î Á¦À۵Ǿú°í, »çÀü °Ë»ç¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ¼öÁ¤µÈ ºÐ¼®Ç¥¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© ±â´Éº°, ³»¿ëº°, À¯Çüº°·Î ¿¬½À¹®Á¦ ¹®Ç×À» ºÐ·ùÇÏ¿´´Ù. ÀÚ·á ó¸® °úÁ¤Àº ¿ì¼±, °¢ ±³°ú¼­¸¶´Ù ´Ü¿ø ¼ö ¹× ¹®Ç× ¼ö°¡ ÀÏÄ¡ÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀ¸¹Ç·Î ¸ðµç ºóµµ´Â ¹éºÐÀ²·Î ȯ»êµÇ¾ú°í, 5Á¾ 15±Ç ±³°ú¼­ÀÇ ¸ðµç ¿¬½À¹®Á¦ ÀÚ·á´Â SPSS ÇÁ·Î±×·¥À» ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© Â÷ÀÌ °ËÁõÀ» ½Ç½ÃÇÏ¿´´Ù. ºÐ¼® °á°ú¸¦ ¿ä¾àÇÏ¸é ´ÙÀ½°ú °°´Ù. ù°, ¾ð¾î ±â´É¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¹®Ç׺ÐÆ÷´Â ±³°ú¼­°£, ÇгⰣ¿¡ Åë°èÀûÀ¸·Î À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ³µ´Ù. Ç¥Çö ±â´É(54.4%)ÀÌ ÀÌÇØ ±â´É(30%)º¸´Ù ¸¹Àº ºñÁßÀ¸·Î ´Ù·ç¾ú°í, ¹®¹ý¡¤¾îÈÖ ¹× ¹ßÀ½¿¡ ÇØ´çÇÏ´Â ¾ð¾î ¿µ¿ªÀº 13.8%·Î »ó´ëÀûÀ¸·Î ÀûÀº ºñÁßÀ¸·Î ´Ù·ç¾îÁ³´Ù. µÑ°, ³»¿ë¸é¿¡¼­µµ ±³°ú¼­°£, ÇгⰣ¿¡ Åë°èÀûÀ¸·Î À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ³µ´Ù. Á¤È®¼ºº¸´Ù´Â À¯Ã¢¼º¿¡ ºñÁßÀ» µÐ ÀÇ»ç ¼ÒÅëÀûÀÎ ¸éÀÌ °­Á¶µÇ°í Àִµ¥ Ç¥Çö ±â´É¿¡¼­´Â '¸»À̳ª ±ÛÀ» ½¬¿î ¸»·Î ¹Ù²Ù¾î ´Ù½Ã Ç¥Çö'(46.5%)ÀÌ Àý´ëÀûÀÎ ºñÁßÀ» Â÷ÁöÇÏ¿´°í, ÀÌÇØ ±â´É¿¡¼­´Â '´ãÈ­³ª ±ÛÀÇ ¼¼ºÎ³»¿ë, ÁٰŸ®, ¿äÁö, ÁÖÁ¦ µî ÀÌÇØ'(15.0%)°¡ Å« ºñÁßÀ» Â÷ÁöÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¼Â°, À¯Çü¸é¿¡¼­µµ ±³°ú¼­°£, ÇгⰣ¿¡ Åë°èÀûÀ¸·Î À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ³µ´Ù. ±â°èÀû ¿¬½ÀÀÌ 41.9%·Î ÁßÇб³º¸´Ù20% °¡±îÀÌ ÁÙ¾úÀ½À» ¾Ë ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ À¯ÀÇÀû ¿¬½ÀÀº 54%·Î ÁßÇб³(36.4%)¿Í ºñ±³½Ã 18% Á¤µµ Áõ°¡ÇßÀ½À» ¾Ë ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. Á¾ÇÕÇÏ¿© º¼ ¶§, ¿¬½À¹®Á¦ÀÇ ±â´É¿¡ À־ ÀÌÇØ ±â´Éº¸´Ù´Â Ç¥Çö ±â´É¿¡ ´õ ºñÁßÀ» µÎ°í ÀÖ¾úÀ¸¸ç, ³»¿ë¸é¿¡¼­´Â ÀÇ»ç ¼ÒÅëÀû ¿ä¼Ò¸¦ °­Á¶ÇÏ°í ÀÖ¾î Ç¥¸éÀûÀ¸·Î´Â ÀÇ»ç ¼ÒÅë Áß½ÉÀÇ ±³À°¿¡ ºÎÇÕÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Â °Íó·³ º¸¿´´Ù. °á·ÐÀûÀ¸·Î ¹Ýº¹¡¤½ÉÈ­½ÃÅ°°í Æò°¡ÇÏ´Â °úÁ¤¿¡¼­ ÀÇ»ç ¼ÒÅë È°µ¿À¸·Î À̾îÁöÁö ¸øÇÏ¿© ÀÇ»ç ¼ÒÅë Áß½É È°µ¿¿¡ Á¢±Ù ÇÒ ÇÊ¿ä°¡ ÀÖ´Ù.

[±¹³»³í¹®]

21¼¼±â°¡ ¿ä±¸ÇÏ´Â ´Ù¸éÀûÀÌ°í º¹ÇÕÀûÀÎ ¿ª·®À» °®Ãß°Ô²û ÇлýµéÀ» ±³À°ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀº ´ëÇÐÀÇ Àǹ« ÁßÀÇ ÇϳªÀÌ´Ù. µû¶ó¼­ ÇаúÀÇ Àü°ø°ú¸ñ°ú ¿¬°èÇÏ¿© ´Ù¾çÇÑ ¿ª·®ÀÌ ¹è¾çµÉ ¼ö ÀÖµµ·Ï ÇÏ´Â ³ë·ÂÀÌ ÇÊ¿äÇÏ´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸´Â ÀÌ·± ³ë·ÂÀÇ Çϳª·Î 'ºñÁî´Ï½º ¿µ¾î' Àü°ø°ú¸ñ¿¡ ¹®Á¦Áß½ÉÇнÀÀ» Àû¿ëÇÏ¿´´Ù. ÇлýµéÀÌ ¹®Á¦Áß½ÉÇнÀÀ» ¼öÇàÇϸ鼭 ÀνÄÇÏ´Â ÇнÀ °æÇè¿¡ ÃÊÁ¡À» ¸ÂÃß¾î ÀÚ±âÆò°¡ ÇüÅÂÀÇ ¼³¹®Á¶»ç¸¦ ½Ç½ÃÇÔÀ¸·Î½á, 'ºñÁî´Ï½º ¿µ¾î' ¼ö¾÷¿¡ ¹®Á¦Áß½ÉÇнÀÀ» Àû¿ë½ÃÅ°´Â °ÍÀÇ À¯¿ë¼ºÀ» Ž»öÇغ¸°íÀÚ ÇÏ¿´´Ù. Á¶»ç °á°ú¸¦ ºÐ¼®ÇÑ °á°ú ´ÙÀ½ÀÇ ¼¼ °¡Áö¸¦ È®ÀÎÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. ù°, ¹®Á¦Áß½ÉÇнÀ »óȲ¿¡¼­ Á÷¾÷±âÃʴɷ¿¡ ÇØ´çµÇ´Â Çٽɿª·®ÀÌ ¹è¾çµÉ °¡´É¼ºÀÌ ³ô¾Ò´Ù. µÑ°, ºñÁî´Ï½º Àü¹®Áö½Ä ½Àµæ°ú ¿µ¾î ÇнÀ¿¡ ±àÁ¤Àû ¿µÇâÀ» ³¢ÃÄ Çо÷¼ºÃë¿¡ À־µµ À¯¿ëÇÑ È¿°ú¸¦ ³ªÅ¸³¾ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î º¸¿´´Ù. ¼Â°, ¹®Á¦Áß½ÉÇнÀ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÇлýµéÀÇ ¸¸Á·µµ´Â º¸Åë ÀÌ»óÀ̾ú´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸´Â Ư¼ö¸ñÀû¿µ¾îÀÎ 'ºñÁî´Ï½º ¿µ¾î'¿¡ ¹®Á¦Áß½ÉÇнÀÀ» µµÀÔÇÏ¿© Çо÷¼ºÃë¿Í ´õºÒ¾î ´Ù¾çÇÑ Çٽɿª·®ÀÇ ÁõÁø °¡´É¼ºÀ» º¸¿©ÁÖ¾ú´Ù´Â µ¥ ÀÇÀÇ°¡ ÀÖ´Ù.

[±¹³»³í¹®]

In English textbooks, there are three kinds of English intonation representations: Trager & Smith's, Weak-strong, Audio-lingual way. Each representation has its merits and demerits. Therefore, just one of them is insufficient to represent English intonation properly. Trager & Smith's representation is relevant to show holistic intonation itself. In contrast to this merit, it is not appropriate to represent downstep, declination, etc. With Weak-strong, it is good to show weak and strong point in the sentence. It is not, however, consistent with intonation. Instead of these representations, some textbooks accept Audio-lingual method. Audio-lingual method gives students more chances to hear native speakers' intonations. But it doesn't give ways to understand English intonation itself. In English textbooks, they don't have any hierarchies dependent upon students' proficiency. In spite of various intonations, they just accept a few limited intonation models. Thus, it is necessary to review all kinds of intonation representations and to develop more advanced and relevant English intonation representation.

[±¹³»³í¹®]

ÀÌ ±ÛÀº Á¦2ȸ ¼­¿ï ±¹Á¦ À½¼ºÇÐ Çмú´ëȸ(SICOPS 2000) ±âÁ¶°­¿¬ ³»¿ëÀ» Á¶±Ý ¼ÕÁúÇÑ °ÍÀε¥, Çѱ¹ÀÎ ¿µ¾î ÇнÀÀÚ°¡ ÀúÁö¸£±â ½¬¿î ¹ßÀ½»ó À߸øÀ» ¸ðÀ½, ÀÚÀ½º°·Î °üÂûÇÏ°í ±× ´ëÃ¥À» ³íÀÇÇÑ´Ù. ¸ðÀ½¿¡¼­´Â ÁÖ·Î i:l, u:$-\sigma$, (equation omitted) È絿ÀÌ ¹®Á¦À̸ç, ¶ÇÇÑ 90Á¾ÀÌ ³Ñ´Â ¿©·¯ öÀÚ·Î ³ªÅ¸³ª´Â ÂßÁ¤¸ðÀ½(schwa) ½Äº°°ú Á¤º¹ÇÑ ¹ßÀ½µµ Å« ¹®Á¦´Ù. ÀÚÀ½¿¡¼­´Â À½¼Ò ¿¬°á¹æ½Ä¿¡¼­ »ý±â´Â ÀÚÀ½Á¢º¯ µÕ ÇÑ ±¹¾î ƯÀ¯ Çö»óÀ» ¿µ¾î¿¡±îÁö ¿¬ÀåÇÏ´Â ¹Ù¶÷¿¡ ¸¹Àº ¿À·ù°¡ »ý±ä´Ù´Â °Í°ú ¿µ¾î sp-, st-, sk-¿¡¼­ /p t k/´Â ¿¬ÇѼҸ®(lenis)·Î [(equation omitted)]Àε¥, µÈ¼Ò¸®·Î À߸ø¾Ë°í ÀÖ´Â ¼ö°¡ ¸¹´Ù´Â °Íµµ ÁöÀûµÈ´Ù. ¹«·í ¿µ¾îÇнÀÀڴ öÀÚ¸¸ º¸°í ¹ßÀ½À» ¼Ó´ÜÇÏÁö ¸»°í ´Ü¾î¸¶´Ù ¹Ýµå½Ã ¹ßÀ½À» »çÀü¿¡¼­ È®ÀÎÇÒ °Í°ú ¾Æ¿ï·¯ °Å±â¿¡ À½¼ºÇÐÀû ÈÆ·ÃÀÌ ¼ö¹ÝµÇ¾î¾ß ÇÔÀ» ¿ª¼³Çϸç, Á¤È®ÇÑ ¹ßÀ½À» ¾Æ´Â °ÍÀº ½ÇÁ¦ ¿µ¾î ûÃëi±¸»ç¿¡ »Ó ¾Æ´Ï¶ó ¶ÇÇÑ ¾ð¾î¿¬±¸ ±âÃÊÈ®¸³¿¡ ÇʼöÀûÀ̶ó´Â ¸»·Î ±ÛÀ» ¸Î´Â´Ù.

[±¹³»³í¹®]

PBL(Problem-Based Learning)¿¡¼­ °¡Àå Áß¿äÇϸç ÇнÀÀÚµéÀÇ Ã¢ÀǼº ¹× ¹®Á¦ ÇØ°á ´É·ÂÀ» ¼º°øÀûÀ¸·Î À̲ô´Â ¿­¼è´Â ¹®Á¦ °³¹ßÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸ÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº PBL ¼ö¾÷À» È¿°úÀûÀ¸·Î ¿î¿µÇϱâ À§ÇØ ¹®Á¦ °³¹ß ÀýÂ÷¸¦ ±¸Ã¼È­ÇÏ°í ÃʵîÇб³ ¿µ¾î°úÇÐ ¼ö¾÷¿¡ ÀûÇÕÇÑ PBLÇнÀÀÇ ¹®Á¦¸¦ °³¹ßÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­ ¹®Á¦ °³¹ßÀ» À§ÇØ ±³À° ³»¿ë ÆÄ¾Ç ´Ü°è, ÇнÀÀÚ Æ¯¼º ÆÄ¾Ç ´Ü°è, ¹®Á¦ ¹ß°ß ´Ü°è, ¿ªÇÒ°ú »óȲ ¼³Á¤ ´Ü°è, ¹®Á¦ ÀÛ¼º ´Ü°è·Î ¿ä¾àÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù. ÀÌ¿Í °°Àº ¹®Á¦ °³¹ß ´Ü°è¸¦ ¹ÙÅÁÀ¸·Î Y ÃʵîÇб³¿¡¼­ ½ÃÇàµÇ°í ÀÖ´Â ¿µ¾î ±³°ú °úÁ¤ Áß ÇϳªÀÎ ¿µ¾î°úÇÐ ¼ö¾÷¿¡¼­ PBL ÇнÀ¹ýÀÌ ÀûÇÕÇÑ ÁÖÁ¦¸¦ ¼±Á¤ÇÏ¿© 5°³ÀÇ ¹®Á¦¸¦ °³¹ßÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¿©ÀüÈ÷ ¸¹Àº ¿µ¾î ±³À° ÇöÀå¿¡¼­ ÀÌ·ç¾îÁö°í ÀÖ´Â ±³»ç Á᫐ ¼ö¾÷, ¸ð¹ü ´ä¾ÈÀ» À§ÇÑ Áö½Ä ½Àµæ, ȹÀÏÀûÀÎ Æò°¡°¡ ¾Æ´Ñ 21¼¼±â ±Þ°ÝÈ÷ º¯È­ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Â »çȸ¿¡ ¹Ýµå½Ã ¿ä±¸µÇ´Â âÀÇÀû »ç°í, ¹®Á¦ ÇØ°á ´É·Â, ¹ßÇ¥·Â, Àڽۨ, ÀÚ±â ÁÖµµÀû ÇнÀ ´É·Â, Çùµ¿½É, ÀÇ»ç¼ÒÅë´É·Â Çâ»óÀ» À§ÇØ PBL ÇнÀ¹ý¿¡ ÀûÇÕÇÑ ¹®Á¦ °³¹ßÀº Áö¼ÓÇؼ­ ¿¬±¸µÇ¾î¾ß ÇÑ´Ù.

[±¹³»³í¹®]

The multi-word verb construction causes problems for learners of English as a foreign language. Its discussion has been neglected in both English classes and English language teaching journals in Korea. The purpose of this paper is to point out the main issues and to make suggestions regarding teaching and learning multi-word verbs. The paper first defines the terminology of the multi-word verb and its category. It next describes general characteristics of the multi-word verb construction in terms of (¥¡) common lexical verbs and particles which form multi-word verbs, (¥¢) the distinction between verb particle combination and free combination, (¥£) semantic idiomaticity and common meanings of particles, (¥¤) stress, and (¥¥) register. The paper recommends that the following items should be intensively dealt with in an English classroom: diagnostic frames for phrasal and prepositional verbs, the six major types of multi-word verb, separability and inseparability of the particle from the verb by the direct object, and predictability of adverbial or prepositional particles. This paper is expected to be utilized as handy reference material not only by English teachers, but also by high school and university students.

[ÇØ¿Ü³í¹®]

The purpose of this study is to describe the conceptual metaphor of problem-solving in American English and to analyze its use based on the COCA corpus. Since the puzzle metaphor was explained as a characteristic problem-solving metaphor of American culture in Lakoff and Johnson (1980), no detailed linguistic research has followed. In this study, we reveal that there are two prevalent types of conceptualizations of PROBLEM and PROBLEMSOLVING in English: PROBLEM is a given task such as a puzzle, and PROBLEMSOLVING is fulfilling the task by finding the correct answer; PROBLEM is a danger, and PROBLEM-SOLVING is eliminating the danger with or without the correct answer. In the first type of metaphors, there emerges an entailment that the correct answer is in the problem itself, not in the outside environment. Analyzing the use of metaphors reveals that the machine breakdown metaphor and the disease metaphor are major alternative metaphors to the puzzle metaphor. The two metaphors ask us to find the correct answer before eliminating a danger, showing that, in American culture, finding the correct answer is crucial in problem-solving regardless of how a problem is conceived.

[±¹³»³í¹®]

À½¼º ¿µ¾î±³À°¿¡¼­ °¢ À½¼Ò(¸ðÀ½.ÀÚÀ½) À½°¡ ÀνÄÀÌ Áß¿äÇÑ °ÍÀº ¹°·ÐÀÌÁö¸¸, ½ÇÁ¦·Î ¿µ¾î¸¦ µè°í ¸»ÇÏ´Â µ¥´Â °­¼¼¸ðÀ½°ú ¾àÀ½(ÁÖ·Î À½)ÀÌ ¹ø°¥¾Æµé¸ç ¿«¾î³»´Â ¿µ¾î ƯÀ¯ ¸»¾¾ ¹ÚÀÚ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÀÌÇØ°¡ ¿ÀÈ÷·Á ´õ Áß¿äÇÑ ¸éÀÌ ÀÖ´Ù. ±×·±µ¥ ¿µ¾î öÀÚ°¡ ÀÚÀ½ Á¤º¸´Â ºñ±³Àû Àß º¸¿©ÁÖÁö¸¸, ¸ðÀ½ Á¤º¸´Â Á¤È®È÷ ¾Ë·ÁÁÖÁö ¸øÇÑ´Ù. À̸¦Å׸é (equation omitted)¸¦ Àû´Â öÀÚ°¡ °¢°¢ 20°¡Áö ÀÌ»óÀ̸ç, ƯÈ÷ ÂßÁ¤¸ðÀ½(schwa) $\partial$¸¦ Àû´Â öÀÚ´Â ¹«·Á 90°¡Áö°¡ ³Ñ´Â´Ù. ÀÌ $\partial$´Â °­¼¼ ±×´Ã¿¡¼­ ºñ·Ï ª°í ¾àÇÏ°Ô ¹ßÀ½µÇÁö¸¸ ¿µ¾î¿¡¼­ µý ¾î´À ¸ðÀ½º¸´Ùµµ ÈξÀ ³ôÀº ºóµµ¸¦ º¸À̱⠶§¹®¿¡ [(equation omitted)] À½°¡¿Í ±×°ÍÀÌ ÀÖ´Â ÀÚ¸®, Áï öÀÚ ¹Ø¿¡ ¼û¾î ±× Á¸À縦 ¾Ë±â ¾î·Á¿î $\partial$ À½ÀÇ ¼ÒÀ縦 öÀúÈ÷ ÆľÇÇÏ´Â °ÍÀº ¿µ¾î¸¦ Àß µè°í ¿µ¾î´ä°Ô ¸»ÇÏ´Â µ¥¿¡ Çʼö ¿äü¶ó ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù. ÀÌ ±Û¿¡¼­´Â ÂßÁ¤¸ðÀ½(schwa) [$\partial$]¸¦ Æ÷ÇÔÇÑ ¿µ¾î ÁÖ¿ä ¸ðÀ½ öÀÚ ´Ù¾ç¼ºÀ» °íÂûÇÏ¿© ¿ì¸®³ª¶ó À½¼º ¿µ¾î ±³À°(TEFL/TESOL)¿¡ ±ÍÁßÇÑ Âü°í ÀڷḦ Á¦°øÇÏ°í, À̸¦ ÅëÇÑ ¿Ã¹Ù¸¥ ¿µ¾î ¹ßÀ½ ÇнÀ ŵµ¸¦ Á¦¾ðÇÑ´Ù.

[±¹³»³í¹®]

The purpose of this paper is to slove problems with English pronunciation education and to correct the misbelief that misbelief that English pronunciation can be thught effectiverly by native speakers or good speakers. Best sellers have many mistakes even in the description of sounds and most English education departments in national universities teach English phonetics theoretically only for 1 semester, More than 10 years' investigation into native speakers' and good speakers' teaching methods in various ways confirmed that they couldn't know English phonetics teachers should have a theoretical and practical knowledge of phonetics of English and students' dialects and the abilities to find the same or similar English sounds their students can make in normal or abnormal situations, to make both correct sounds and incorrect ones their students can make and to make them perceive the differences by using various ways.

[±¹³»³í¹®]

We live in a global village that requires a language with a genuinely global status as a means of communication. During the twentieth century, English has clearly emerged as the lingua franca owing to both past British political imperialism and the more recent superpower status of the United States. Further contributing to world domination of the English language is the fact that the computer and Internet sprang from the US. Whether you like it or not, you are destined to learn English at least to some extent in order to live in this global village. For the last two decades, one of the most mistaken ideas a number of Korean English teachers have had is that speaking and listening are the primary forms of language, while reading and writing are secondary. In fact, reading is regarded as a skill of much consequence to us since it provides us with access to a huge quantity of information on the Internet, of which at least 80% is written in English. Writing, too, deserves a great deal of attention because we are increasingly called upon to use standard English expressions. As diligent learners of English, we had better not forget the place accorded to language not only as a medium for exchange and constructing information but as a tool for thinking. So we should try to think in English to the point where we have thinking-in-English as a habit, thereby leading to increased familiarity with the language. Such familiarity entails, above all, possessing a command of English.

[±¹³»³í¹®]

Áß±¹°æÁ¦ÀÇ ºü¸¥ ¼ºÀå°ú ÇÔ²², ¿µ¾î½ÀµæÀº Àü¸Á ÀÖ°í º¸´Ù ³ªÀº Á÷¾÷À» ã±â À§ÇÑ ÇʼöÀûÀÎ µµ±¸·Î °£Áֵǰí ÀÖ´Ù. ±×·¯³ª ¿µ¾î±³À°°ú ÇнÀÀÇ °á°ú´Â ÈξÀ ¸¸Á·½º·´Áö ¸øÇØ ¿Ô´Ù. ¿µ¾î¸¦ ÇнÀÇÏ´Â À̵éÀÇ ³ôÀº ½ÃÇèÁ¡¼ö¿Í ³·Àº ÀÇ»ç¼ÒÅë ´É·Â»çÀÌÀÇ ºÐ¸íÇÑ ´ëÁ¶´Â Áß±¹¿¡¼­ ¿µ¾î±³À°ÀÌ ¼º°øÀûÀÌÁö ¸øÇß´Ù´Â »ç½ÇÀ» µå·¯³½´Ù. ÇлýÁ߽ɰú ±³»çÁß½ÉÀÇ ±³½Ç, ½Ç·ÂÀ§ÁÖ È¤Àº ½ÃÇèÀ§ÁÖÀÇ Æò°¡Á¦µµ, ¾ð¾îÁÖÀÔ°ú Ç¥Çö, ±×¸®°í Á¤È®¼º°ú À¯Ã¢ÇÔ°ú °ü·ÃÀÌ ÀÖ´Â Áß±¹ ¿µ¾î±³À°ÀÇ ¸î °¡Áö ¾î·Á¿î Á¡µé¿¡ ´ëÇØ ÇÑ ´ëÇпµ¾î±³¼öÀÇ °üÁ¡¿¡¼­ ÀÎÁöÇÏ°í ³íÀÇÇÒ °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ¸¹Àº ¹®Á¦Á¡µé Áß¿¡¼­, ±×·± ¹®Á¦Á¡µé¿¡ ÃÊÁ¡À» ¸ÂÃãÀ¸·Î½á, ¿µ¾î±³À°°ú ÇнÀ¿¡¼­ ¿µ¾î¸¦ ÇнÀÇÏ´Â À̵éÀÇ ¾ð¾îÀǽüÒÅë´É·ÂÀ» ÀÌ·ç±â À§ÇÑ ÇлýÁß½ÉÀÇ ±³½Ç, ½ÃÇèÀÇ ÀÌ·Î¿î ¿ö½Ã¹é(¿ª·ù)È¿°ú, ¾ð¾î Ç¥Çö°ú À¯Ã¢ÇÔÀ» Çâ»ó½ÃÅ´À¸·Î½á Çö¿ªÁ¾»çÀÚµéÀÌ ±×·± º¹ÀâÇÑ ¹®Á¦µéÀ» ÇØ°áÇϵµ·Ï ¸î °¡Áö °¡´É¼º ÀÖ´Â ÇØ°áÃ¥µé°ú °Ç¼³ÀûÀÎ ÀÇ°ßµéÀÌ Á¦½ÃµÉ °ÍÀÌ´Ù.

[ÇØ¿Ü³í¹®]

This paper compares the characteristic differences of Korean and English modification structures on the basis of the two languages' typological differences that can be summarized as object-dominant language and action-dominant language, respectively. The object-dominant characteristics of English are illustrated with examples of the light verb constructions, nominalization constructions, there constructions, and inanimate subject transitive verb constructions. Practical guidelines for translation of relative constructions between the two languages are suggested on the basis of understanding of the two languages' differences in modification system.

[±¹³»³í¹®]

Recently, with the idea to officialize English gaining supports, as an anti-thesis to it, many South Koreans suggest that we should globalize Korean. It is undeniable that Korean could be internationalized as much as others, especially, English. Scientifically, the former is not inferior or superior to the latter, or vice versa, as we know. However, in reality, both are quite differently regarded. English is considered as one of the most important international language but Korean is not. This stark difference has perplexed South Koreans a lot. How can something that is, or believed to be, equal in essence be valued differently? This paper tried to solve this puzzlement with social linguistic method. For this, we borrowed from linguistic economics the concept of use-value and exchange-value. Anything that is useful for human beings has use-value. However, we do not pay for all useful things like air. That is, among them, only some have exchange-values. Comparing English with Korean in this frame work, we can say that both have use-values but the former has more exchangevalue than the latter. It leads us to the conclusion that the failure to tell apart use-from exchange-value of language has bewildered many south Koreans.

[ÇØ¿Ü³í¹®]

The purpose of this study is to investigate the problems in Korean English education reflected in the native English speaking teachers' viewpoint. For the study the researchers developed a questionnaire by a three step Delphi method. Through the study the researchers found several categories the native English speaking teachers regard as problems to solve. The results shows five categories such as textbooks and teaching materials, educational environment and teaching methods including evaluation process, curriculum and policies such as college entrance exam, policies and training program for the native English speaking teachers in service, and policies to fill the English educational gaps between urban and rural areas such as after school programs. The researchers also discussed some possible suggestions to the government and regional education offices.

[±¹³»³í¹®]

& & The purpose of this study was to explore teachers¡¯ perceptions of the problems for young children¡¯s English education in the education setting. Interviews were conducted to determine the type of problems teachers had in regards to the young children¡¯s English education curriculum in the education setting. Participants of the interview consisted of 4 early childhood teachers and 2 headmasters. Based on the results of the interview, teachers perceptions of the English based curriculum indicated that teachers had issues with understanding methods, vocabulary, and conservation skills. Teachers also struggled with parents excessive interest in the English language and also the pressure for English based curriculum in the early childhood education setting. The results from this study provide educators with solutions to the problems that currently exist in early childhood education settings using an English based curriculum. The data allows educators to reflect on the issues and find solutions.

/ 333

Filters

º¸±âÇü½Ä

Á¤·Ä¼ø¼­

Æ÷¸Ë

¸®½ºÆ® ¼ö