KJCKorea
Journal Central

In Taiwan, the Mandarin Chinese code and the South Min Dialect code are commonly used in all fields. The two codes are frequently switched and used interchangeably in a method called code switching. In this study, we examined the types of code switching that occurred in situations where the Mandarin Chinese and South Min Dialect codes were switched in Taiwanese current affairs discussion programs. “Statement” is the most frequently used form of speech in everyday life and has the highest frequency of occurrence. “Role switching” is when a speaker uses code switching as if he or she is performing a double role. In the case of code switching in the form of “role switching,” there are cases where a South Min Dialect code is used to describe a politician belonging to the Kuomintang, and a Mandarin Chinese code is used to describe a politician belonging to the Democratic Progressive Party. In the “question and answer” situation, there are examples of code switching such as “question,” “question and answer,” and “question and answer.” “Code assimilation” refers to a situation where the preceding speaker switches to the South Min code, and the succeeding speaker also switches to the South Min code and continues the conversation in the South Min code. In other types, “metaphor” refers to a case where code-switching occurs in a situation of metaphor and simile, and in addition, examples of “exaggeration”, “speaker”, “South Min proverb”, and “Mandarin Chinese code neologism” were found. Looking at statistics on the number of appearances of various code-switching forms in Taiwan’s current affairs discussion program, “statement” was the most frequent at 129 times, followed by “role switching” at 91 times, the second most. “Code assimilation”, “question-answer”, and “metaphor” also appeared more than 20 times. The reason why “statement” is the most frequent among these can be seen as being because “statement” is the most frequently used in general speech. The fact that “role switching” appears 91 times can be seen as an attempt to make it more vivid with different codes, making it easier for listeners to understand.

This study examines the patterns of errors in the use of the aspect marker zhe by Chinese language learners, based on the HSK Dynamic Composition Corpus. The analysis focuses on two main types of errors: One is when 'zhe' is used when it should not be used, and the other is when 'zhe' is not used when it should be used. The classification of verbs follows the criteria proposed by Guo(1993, 1997). The analysis reveals that errors involving the misuse of zhe mainly occur with stative verbs that cannot co-occur with zhe , and with change verbs that possess telic feature. Errors were also observed in sentences where the verb functions as a reporting verb, in exclamatory sentences, and in constructions involving locative prepositional phrases. In contrast, omission errors predominantly appear with Vc1 and Vc2 stative verbs. Notably, Vc1 verbs, unlike Guo's original classification, can in certain contexts combine with zhe . Furthermore, a considerable number of omission errors also appeared with certain dynamic verbs. In terms of sentence patterns, most errors were found in serial verb constructions and structures related to boundedness. This study analyzes the distribution of errors made by Chinese learners, with particular attention to the constraints imposed by verb types and sentence structures.

This paper examines the concept and characteristics of descriptive nouns in Korean and Chinese and discovers that the descriptive nouns in Korean are particularly closely related to the ‘verbs and nouns’ in Chinese. It aims to clarify the similarities and differences between Korean descriptive nouns and Chinese ‘verbs and nouns’ through comparison. The purpose is not only to deepen the understanding of the characteristics of nouns in Korean and Chinese but also to promote the in depth development of linguistic research. As a result, the similarities are as follows: 1) In terms of syntax, there are argument requiring characteristics; 2) In terms of semantics, the possibility of expressing events, actions, and states has been confirmed. In addition, it has been found that both languages have the common feature of having semantic complexity and polysemy. The differences are as follows: 1) There are differences in the types of argument markers taken by the main arguments and their syntactic characteristics. 2) When Chinese ‘verbs and nouns’ are modified by nouns, the particle ‘-de’ can be omitted, while in Korean, the argument marker ‘-ui’ cannot be omitted. This means that it is necessary not only to deepen the understanding of the characteristics of nouns in Korean and Chinese but also to provide new perspectives and methods for cross linguistic contrastive research.