Earticle

This research puts the revised Korean and Chinese punctuation rules with reference to the comma in Chinese and Korean. As known, the core function of the Chinese and Korean commas refers to a short pause in sentences. In terms of the function and role of punctuation in written context, a wide range of recent research has paid attention to their disparities and similarities between the two languages. In the educational context, accuracy and understanding of puncutation rules should be educated, for they can represent different semantic changes depending on the context. With regard to the use of punctuation in context, regulations concerning punctuation have recently been amended. Chinese punctuation rules are recently revised in 2011: "General Rules for Function" (GB/T 15834 2011) and the Simplified Chinese, and "Hangul Matchumbeop" in 2017. The research puts forth that the similarities and disparities between the two languages should be increasingly studied, since Korean Chinese learners often make punctuational mistakes in their written works. Conclusively, Chinese learners should clearly understand the accurate function and usage of punctuation, paying attention to semantic differences in written context.

This research aimed to compare punctuation marks frequently used in China and Taiwan, exploring the historical establishment process and differences of the current punctuation rules on both sides. In a large sense, current punctuation rules in China are based on “General Rules for Punctuation” (2011). However, in Taiwan, “The Revised Punctuation Handbook” (2008) is currently applied. They are basically rooted in the “New Punctuation” of 1920. Since 1949, they have been slightly different in usage. In particular, as rules have been revised over time, the punctuation marks on both sides showed a plethora of dissimilarities between both sides. Accordingly, this research fully paid attention to the history of Chinese punctuation marks, then briefly compared both current punctuation rules with reference to contemporary use. As a result, a few differences were found: The Chinese rules are more systemic and detailed than those in Taiwan. For instance, Taiwan's rules have no table of contents, definitions and classifications of punctuation marks. In addition, there were no specific usage and examples in Taiwan. It can be assumed that the policy and regulation of both governments have some impact on them. Simply put, Chinese learners and users should get aware of accurate Chinese punctuation marks frequently used on both sides. Furthermore, the higher similarities of the punctuation rules and usage could pave the way for more bilateral culture exchanges and Chinese learners.

The purpose of this study is to investigate punctuation translation strategy of the Korean-Russian machine translation and categorize the types of its errors. This study is also aims to seek practical implications for improving product quality of machine translation by establishment of pre-editing rules and its application. For this goals, corpus of articles in KBS World Radio were established, and quantitative and qualitative analyses were carried out. The analysis results showed that both the punctuation translation strategy of machine and of human were almost same. However, the punctuation error rate by machine translation was 24.19% while the error rate by human translation was only 2.4%. To determine the cause of this, only the errors about punctuation by machine translation were classified, and the translation strategy was addition > shift > literal translation > omission. The type of punctuation marks causing errors in the source texts by machine translation was revealed. Then, the errors by machine were categorized by punctuation marks, and Pre-editing rules were created based on this. In addition, to verify the rules’ utility, the source texts and the texts translated by machine, the pre-edited source texts and the newly-produced texts by machine were comparatively analyzed. The analysis result showed that only the pre-editing rules applied to punctuation marks considerably improved sentence structure, grammar, omission, mistranslation and non-sentence.

The purpose of this paper is to compare the Punctuation Rules of German and Korean. On December 5, 2014, the Korean Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism announced “the revised version of the Hangul Matchumbeop (Korean Orthography),” including the issues of the regulations related to the revision of the punctuation marks (implemented on January 1, 2015). It has been 26 years since the first version of “Punctuation” was introduced in the Appendix section of “Hangul Matchumbeop” in 1988. Thus, this study attempts to investigate the difference in the punctuation marking rules between German and Korean. Punctuation marks are considered as symbols and marks to indicate the structure of a sentence, delivering the author's intention. Thus, the correct use of the marks is very important in writing. In consideration of this importance, this current paper presents the definition, function and role of the punctuation marks to understand them correctly. It also explores the history of the punctuation marking rules of German and Korean.

In this paper, we summarized feature of the punctuation rules as amended, and proposed a vision for future directions for use of the punctuation rules. An amendment to the punctuation rules in critical of punctuation marks weren't in the definition included on the opening. Although it was incomplete, they are meaningful that they offered us a punctuation mark starting point. There are horizontal writing of punctuation marks 24 species only in punctuation mark as amended. ‘The arrow parenthesis’ and ‘underline’ punctuation is newly registered. Used in vertical writing ‘Gorijeom, Mojeom’ were deleted, while ‘Natpyo’ is modified a horizontal writing punctuation usage. In amendment to the punctuation rules so far that has been confusion of directions for many problems, it emphasized a practical part for user. Punctuation mark, name of ‘a period : Onjeom’, ‘a comma : Banjeom’ with confusion has decided and ‘a period’ and ‘a comma’, also allowed the use of ‘Onjeom’, ‘Banjeom’. An ellipsis in the case of six points that have been recognized only to take over the center also was allowed to use scored 3 or 6 below, center. Also, the punctuation’s spacing rule relevant provisions are added. So the user had to make it easy to write. The provisions also enjoyed on him. But punctuation mark, Regulation as amended, was attaching narrative to be able to resolve these difficulties were.