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.
이 논문의 연구 히스토리 (3)
2024
- 이 논문의 후속연구가 궁금하신가요?
- 연관 학술논문 또는 학술발표를 통해 보다 발전된 연구결과를 확인하실 수 있습니다.
- 이 논문의 연구 히스토리 확인하기
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The katakana words “Break” and “Boom” both mean “suddenly popular” and are frequently used in magazines and other headlines. However, in some headlines, we can observe that both words are interchangeable, whereas in others, they are not.
In this study, a corpus of magazine article headlines was used to investigate similarities and differences in appearance, focusing on 1) the tendency of the “break/boom” object, and 2) the tendency of context and phrasing, and the results were compared and discussed.
The results for the former indicate that “break” tends to target “people”, especially “people appearing in the media”, whereas “boom” tends to target “things”. For the latter, differences were found in terms of 1) contextual structure, 2) the point in time at which the two words were referred to, and 3) word formation. That is,
1) The number of scenarios in which the context is “about to break” and the number of contexts in which the context is “the "boom" has arrived”.
2) Where the focus is on “before the boom”, “during the transitional period of the boom”, “during the boom” and “at the end of the boom”.
(3) Whether the object is connected before the word or not, and whether chuu “now-ing” is connected after the word or not.
As its background, it was argued that this could be explained by introducing the concepts of “action” and “state”.
In this study, a corpus of magazine article headlines was used to investigate similarities and differences in appearance, focusing on 1) the tendency of the “break/boom” object, and 2) the tendency of context and phrasing, and the results were compared and discussed.
The results for the former indicate that “break” tends to target “people”, especially “people appearing in the media”, whereas “boom” tends to target “things”. For the latter, differences were found in terms of 1) contextual structure, 2) the point in time at which the two words were referred to, and 3) word formation. That is,
1) The number of scenarios in which the context is “about to break” and the number of contexts in which the context is “the "boom" has arrived”.
2) Where the focus is on “before the boom”, “during the transitional period of the boom”, “during the boom” and “at the end of the boom”.
(3) Whether the object is connected before the word or not, and whether chuu “now-ing” is connected after the word or not.
As its background, it was argued that this could be explained by introducing the concepts of “action” and “state”.
목차
1. はじめに
2. 前提的議論
3. 調査
4. 考察-「動態」と「状態」を手掛かりに-
5. おわりに
参考文献
要旨
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0