[1]刘燕妮,连立川,范冰辉,等.海峡两岸土木工程专业术语初步对照与分析[J].福建理工大学学报,2015,13(04):327-333.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1672-4348.2015.04.005]
　Liu Yanni,Lien Li Chuan,Fan Binghui,et al.Preliminary comparison and analysis of civil engineering technical terms across the Taiwan Strait[J].Journal of Fujian University of Technology;,2015,13(04):327-333.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1672-4348.2015.04.005]
点击复制

海峡两岸土木工程专业术语初步对照与分析 ()
分享到：

《福建理工大学学报》[ISSN:2097-3853/CN:35-1351/Z]

卷:
第13卷
期数:
2015年04期
页码:
327-333
栏目:
出版日期:
2015-08-25

文章信息/Info

Title:
Preliminary comparison and analysis of civil engineering technical terms across the Taiwan Strait
作者:
刘燕妮; 连立川; 范冰辉; 戴仕彬
福建工程学院土木工程学院
Author(s):
Liu Yanni;  Lien LiChuan;  Fan Binghui;  Dai Shibin
College of Civil Engineering, Fujian University of Technology
关键词:
海峡两岸;  土木工程;  专业术语;  混淆程度
Keywords:
crossStrait;  civil engineering;  technical term;  confusion degree
分类号:
H102
DOI:
10.3969/j.issn.1672-4348.2015.04.005
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
鉴于海峡两岸土木工程学术交流日趋频繁，但两岸土木工程专业术语目前仍存在易混淆不清的问题(例如脚手架在台湾地区是鹰架)，因此两岸在土木工程专业用语的术语差异性有必要进一步确认与整合。研究共查阅3 273笔两岸土木工程不同专业领域(包含土木、测量、交通、环境、岩土、结构及水利工程等)的术语资料，针对大土木及不同土木工程专业领域的专业术语差异性进行对照，并对专业术语容易混淆的程度给予评分。研究结果发现，在大土木的环境下，具有混淆程度的专业术语占27%，显示两岸土木工程人员在大土木的沟通上约有1/4的专业术语可能会被混淆或误解。此外，在上述的27%中，交通工程专业术语就占了19%，较其它专业领域占约8%左右要多，显示交通工程专业术语最容易混淆不清。
Abstract:
Civil Engineering academic exchanges have been increasing across the Taiwan Strait, however there exist different civil engineering technical terms that may cause ambiguity across the Strait (such as the meaning of the term “scaffolding” is totally different). Therefore, the differences in civil engineering technical terms across the Strait need to be clarified and classified. 3,273 data set civil engineering technical terms of different areas of expertise (including civil engineering, surveying, transportation engineering, environmental engineering, structural engineering, geotechnical engineering, hydraulic engineering) across the Strait were collected. The differences in the overall civil engineering technical terms and distinct expertise of civil engineering were identified. Besides, the confusion degree of the technical terms was presented. The results show that confusable glossary (technical terms) take up 27% of the overall civil engineering technical terms and about 1/4 of the technical terms are confusing or misleading. Moreover, the confusing technical terms of transportation engineering account for 19% of the 27%, taking up the main part.

参考文献/References:

[1] 费锦昌.海峡两岸现行汉字字形的比较分析[J].语言文字应用,1993(1)：39-50.
[2] 肖甫春.汉字改革趋向新探(之一)[J].大庆高等专科学校学报,2001(1)：53-58.
[3] 龚嘉镇.两岸用字的异同与21世纪的“书同文”[J].中国文字研究,2004(5)：83-88.
[4] 徐宁.海峡两岸字体字形差异研究——以宋体与楷体为例[J].乐山师范学院学报，2012(10)：36-46.
[5] 邓章应,黄艳萍.台湾《手写行书范本》中的简体字研究——兼与大陆简化字比较[J].台湾研究，2012(4):55-59.
[6] 魏励.《简明海峡两岸对比词典》的编写问题[C]//语言文字应用研究论文集(Ⅱ).北京：教育部语言文字研究所，2004.
[7] 徐云娜.汉字简繁之争的网络舆情研究[D].保定：河北大学，2009.
[8] 熊南京.二战后台湾语言政策研究（1945-2006）[D].北京：中央民族大学，2007.
[9] 张岚.海峡两岸现代汉语通用语语音差异对比研究[D].上海：华东师范大学.2009.
[10] 包恒新.读《台湾语典》话两岸语缘[C]//海峡两岸五缘论——海峡两岸五缘关系学术研讨会论文集.北京：方志出版社,2003.
[11] 徐红进.最新两岸用语差异对照手册[M].台北：灵活文化，2009.
[12] 范冰辉，黄正瀚，高志翰.海峡两岸土木工程科技术语对照基础研究[J].中国科技术语,2013(5):22-25.

相似文献/References:

[1]谢云萍,吴仁华,吕英志,等.两岸交通运输产业发展水平与专业人才培养模式的关系研究[J].福建理工大学学报,2017,15(05):491.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1672-4348.2017.05.016]
　Xie Yunping,Wu Renhua,Lü Yingzhi,et al.Research on the relationship between transportation industry development and professionals cultivation on both sides of the Taiwan Strait[J].Journal of Fujian University of Technology;,2017,15(04):491.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1672-4348.2017.05.016]
[2]廖珊珊,管倖生.海峡两岸室内设计专业课程比较研究[J].福建理工大学学报,2018,16(05):505.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1672-4348.2018.05.018]
　LIAO Shanshan,GUAN Xingsheng.A comparative study of the specialized courses offered for interior design on both sides of the Taiwan Strait[J].Journal of Fujian University of Technology;,2018,16(04):505.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1672-4348.2018.05.018]

更新日期/Last Update: 2015-08-25