• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.38
• /
• pp.501-521
• /
• 2015

In this paper, through the comparative analysis of Korean syntactic structure of Chinese auxiliary "Aspect" and with this correspondence, find out the semantic differences between the two languages, and the "Aspect" of aspect are analyzed, and results obtained are as follows.

• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.42
• /
• pp.451-474
• /
• 2016

Analysis of the syntactic structure of the modern Chinese adverbs for time 'Cengjing (曾經)' and 'Yijing (已經)' was performed to examine the tenses and aspects of the terms. The corresponding Korean words were examined and the terms in both languages were compared. The syntactic structures used in China and South Korea were found to be different. We hope the study of the Chinese language will help Korean students. 'Cengjing (曾經)' specific projects with 'aspect' of, 'Past experience aspect', 'Past continuous aspect', 'Past continuous aspect' in the past tense. [ED: unclear, please reword] These correspond to '_었 (았)_', '_었었_' in the Korean language. 'Yijing (已經)' has 'finished phase' of concrete projects, 'Past experience aspect', 'Past continuous aspect', also has a specific project tense, the 'past tense', 'present tense', 'future tense', and so tense. [ED: unclear, please reword] Adjectives can also be modified with a 'change of status'. These correspond to '_었 (았)_', '_고_', '_었었_', '곧' etc. in Korean. 'Cengjing (曾經)' and the dynamic auxiliary 'Guo (過)' were compared to determine whether they have the aspect and tense features. However, 'Guo (過)' can only modify the predicate verb, so it possesses only aspect characteristics. 'Cengjing (曾經)' modifies the range more widely. 'Yijing (已經)' may be modified by the adverb 'Zai (在)' whereas 'Cengjing (曾經)' may not. Additionally, 'Yijing (已經)' can be modified by predicate adjectives and noun predicates, while 'Cengjing (曾經)' cannot.

• Korean Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• pp.22-32
• /
• 2017

Judging from the past cases, the contractor has frequently suffered losses caused by disapproved requests or reduced payments since it has not known the conditions of the contract or it has filed a claim to the owner without any proper claim system. Therefore, the existing claim process needs to be reformed. In order to reform the claim process, the contractor should consolidate the organizational structure, grant accurate duty assignments to the claims manager, implement regular staff training on how to deal with claims. In addition to this reformation, the contractor needs to improve the management of construction period and process control, and manage related documents thoroughly. Regular meetings are also necessary in claims. This study attempts to prove the effectiveness of the reformed process applied to Project "A", where the owner was responsible for the delayed supply of materials, inaccurate oral instructions, insufficient information on the work, and frequent changes of design. The project was completed in 96 months, which was extended by 34 months from the initial construction period of 62 months. The reformed claim process is expected to be of great help not only to largescale construction works but also to smallscale ones.