This study has targeted the economic terms used by Korea, China, and Japan, along with America, one of the axis of the global economy. The formation structure of economic terms used by the three Eastern countries has been examined, and the formation p... This study has targeted the economic terms used by Korea, China, and Japan, along with America, one of the axis of the global economy. The formation structure of economic terms used by the three Eastern countries has been examined, and the formation process has been formalized. The purpose of the study lies in determining the similarities and differences in the economic terms used by each country. The culture of the three Eastern countries has been build upon a common structure of Chinese characters for a long time. During this process, the vocabulary used in the Chinese spiritual context has been naturally introduced to Korea and Japan. Thus, China has served as the main source of traditional Chinese character vocabulary. However, Western culture has also been transmitted to Japan after the modern era, and a new route of Chinese character vocabulary has been established. In addition, new vocabularies related to Euramerican culture has either been used directly, or translated independently. This study has used the vocabulary listed in the 「Korean-Chinese/Chinese-Korean Economic Terminology Dictionary」(Seoul News, 2010). Economic terms in the 'ㄱ' section has been utilized as research data. The economic terms listed in this dictionary has gathered and translated the essential working-level terms used by experts in various fields such as tax, finance, accounting, and banking sector, or by individuals who are working in China. By adding Japanese and English to this list, a total of 839 vocabulary has been used as data to examine and compare the formation categories and patterns of economic terms by the three Eastern nations. First, among the 'Comparison of Economic Terms between Korea, China, and Japan' There were 185 cases (22.05%) where the economic terms used by the three Eastern countries was identical; 164 cases where all terms were different (19.55%); 23 cases where Korea and China had identical terms, while Japan used different ones (2.74%); 465 cases (55.42%) where Korea and Japan had identical terms, while China used different ones; and 2 cases (0.24%) where China and Japan had identical terms, while Korea used different ones. There were 164 cases where all terms were different, and the rate of derived translation of Korean terms were 161 cases (98.17%), while China and Japan had 163 cases (99.39%) and 148 cases (90.24%), respectively. The directly derived terms were composed of 8 cases for Japanese (4.88%), and none for the Korean and Chinese language. The derived mixture of the three languages were 3 for Korean (1.83%), 1 for Chinese (0.61%), and 8 for Japanese (4.88%). There were 23 cases where Korea and China had the same terms while Japan had different ones, in which derived translations consisted of 21 cases (91.3%), and 1 each for directly derived terms and derived mixture(4.35%). There were 465 cases where Korea and Japan had same terms while China had different ones, where all Chinese consisted of derived translations; among Korean and Japanese, derived translation consisted of 431 cases (92.69%), 7 cases (1.51%) of directly derived terms, and 27 cases (5.81%) of derived mixture. There were far more cases where economic terms between Korea and Japan were the same, in comparison to cases where Korea and China had identical terms. There were 2 cases (0.23%) where China and Japan had the same terms while Korea used different ones. Next, the 'Comparison of Formation Categories of Economic Terms used in Korea, China, and Japan' was classified based on English terms as the basic standard for identical meanings. Within this category, the '價格 (Chinese), 가격(Korean)' was seen as terms that translated the word 'Price(English)', and thus was regulated as a derived translation. The rate of derived translation within the Korean language among research data was 799 cases (95.23%). The rate within the Chinese language was 832 cases (99.17%). The rate within the Japanese language was 783 cases (93.33%). The cases were '갭(Korean)' was used as 'gap(English)' based on pronunciation was stated as direct derivation. The rate of direct derivation within the Korean languag among research data was 7 cases (0.83%). There were no direct derivation cases within the Chinese language. The rate within the Japanese language was 18 cases (2.14%). The cases where '가격리스크(Korean)' was translated into 'Price risk(English)' by using Chinese character sources and English pronunciation (risk) was stated as a derived mixture. The rate of derived mixture within the Korean language among research data was 33 cases (3.93%). The rate within the Chinese language was 7 cases (0.83%). The rate within the Japanese language was 38 cases (4.53%). The derived translation of the three countries comprised of over 90% of the research data. This can be assumed by the fact that the three countries adopt loanwords based on word formation of the Chinese character more easily. Although the rate for direct derivation and derived mixture was low, it can be assumed that these sectors will increase in the future based on globalization. The economic terms used by Korea, China, and Japan have common characteristics and have been created arbitrarily. There were 650 cases where Korea and Japan had identical economic terms (including cases where all three nations used identical terms), 208 cases where Korea and China had identical economic terms (including cases where all three nations used identical terms), and 187 cases where China and Japan used identical terms (including cases where all three nations used identical terms). The results display that the economic terms between Korea and Japan display the highest rate of similarity. Therefore, it can be stated that the economic terms used in Korea have been influenced by Japan. The 'Exchange Conditions & Formation Categories of Economic Terms between Korea, Japan, and China' serve as an important process in 'selection of learning goals' and 'selection of learning methods' in the perspective of acquiring economic terms.
|
